SHAFAT MAQBOOL WANI TH.HIS PATERNAL UNCLE vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (HOME) AND ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
(Through Virtual Mode)
Reserved on: 13.08.2026
Pronounced on: 02.09.2026
Uploaded on: 03.09.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
HCP No. 312/2025
Shafat Maqbool Wani through his paternal uncle
….Petitioner
Through: Mr Zahid Hussain Dar, Advocate
v.
UT of J&K and others …Respondents
Through: Mr Faheem Nisar Shah, Government Advocate
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE


JUDGMENT
01) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has challenged
detention order bearing No. 27-DMK/PSA of 2025 dated 13.09.2025, for
short to be referred as impugned order, issued by District Magistrate,
Kupwara, for short detaining authority, whereby Sh. Shafat Maqbool Wani
@ Shaf S/o Mohammad Maqbool Wani R/o Kukroosa Vilgam A/p Khanbal-
B Handwara District, Kupwara, for short to be referred as detenue, has been
placed under preventive detention so as to prevent him from indulging in the
activities which are detrimental to the security of the State.
02) It has been contended that there has been non application of mind on the part
of the detaining authority as the said authority has acted mechanically while
issuing the impugned order of detention by relying solely upon FIR No.
69/2025, u/s 7/25 Arms Act, 13, 17, & 18, of the UAP Act, of Police Station
Handwara, in which the detenue was already bailed out by the competent

HCP 312/2025 Page 1 of 6

Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document

court of law (Special Judge, NIA, Jammu) in terms of order dated
13.09.2025 after rejecting the application of NIA seeking extension of
remand beyond 155 days in terms of order dated 08.09.2025. It has been
averred that the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no
nexus with the detenue and that the same have been fabricated by the police
in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It has been
contended that grounds of detention are vague and non-existent, on the basis
of which no prudent man can make an effective representation. It has been
further contended that there were no compelling reasons for the detaining
authority to issue the impugned order of detention.
03) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have contended that the
impugned detention order has been passed after proper application of mind.
It has been further contended that none of the rights of the petitioner has
been violated by the respondents. It has been averred that the petitioner was
involved in the activities which are detrimental to the security of the State
and the same has been confirmed and verified by the detaining authority
before passing the impugned order of detention. It has been averred that
entire material, relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the
impugned detention order, has been furnished to the detenue and the
contents of the same were read over and explained to him.
04) It has been further contended that the detenue was informed that he can
make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining authority
against his detention. It has been averred in the reply affidavit that all
statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and
complied with by the detaining authority and that the order has been issued

HCP 312/2025 Page 2 of 6

Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document

validly and legally. It has also been contended that the detention of the
detenue has been ordered strictly in accordance with the provisions of J&K
Public Safety Act. The respondents have produced the detention record to
lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.
05) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.
06) In the grounds of detention, the respondents have stated inter alia that the
detenue has been brought up in a family having separatist ideology and as
such, the anti-India and separatist feelings have got inculcated in the detenue
since childhood, his father was an ex-militant affiliated with terrorist
organization Al-Barq who has surrendered in the year 1990. It is also stated
in the grounds of detention that the detenue had received many invitations
for attending international conferences, viz. Middle Eastern South Asian and
African Studies Graduate Students Conference at Columbia University and
Eighth Annual South Asia Conference at Dublin City University. The
petitioner/ detenue has also been shown to be involved in case FIR No.
69/2025 for the offences punishable in terms of Sections 13, 17, 18 UAP Act
of Police Station Handwara. It is also reflected in the grounds that anti
national literature was seized from the possession of the petitioner included a
book authored by the petitioner namely “ Construction of an Islamic Order
in Hindutva reimagination ”; “ The saffronization of occupied Kashmir,
Demystifing Hindutva Settlers, Colonial Designers”.
07) Although the petitioner has urged a number of grounds in the writ petition,
for assailing the impugned order of detention, however, during the course of
arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has laid emphasis on

HCP 312/2025 Page 3 of 6

Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document

i) Non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority for
having failed to mention any specific activity of the detenue anywhere
in the grounds that may demonstrate such activities to be prejudicial
to the maintenance of security of state; ii) Except for his involvement
in case FIR no. 69/2025 of Police Station, Handwara, no prejudicial
activity even for namesake has been attributed to the petitioner; iii)
That there were no compelling reasons for the detaining authority to
pass the impugned order of detention.
08) Although, the respondents have reflected in the counter affidavit as also in
the grounds of detention that the detenue had been granted bail, therefore,
they have not been oblivious to this fact, however, at the same time, it can
very safely be said that the detaining authority does not appear to have made
any effort to derive satisfaction as regards the prejudicial activity of the
petitioner/ detenue warranting his preventive detention. Thus, the contention
of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been non-application
of mind on the part of the detaining authority in detaining the detenue,
carries substance. The Apex Court in case titled Ameena Begum v. State of
Telangana reported as (2023) 9 SCC 587 has laid down certain principles
where the order of detention would be declared bad in law. Paragraph no.
28, being relevant is taken note of herein, thus:
“28. In the circumstances of a given case, a Constitutional Court when
called upon to test the legality of orders of preventive detention would be
entitled to examine whether:
(i) the order is based on the requisite satisfaction, albeit
subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the absence of such
satisfaction as to the existence of a matter of fact or law, upon
which validity of the exercise of the power is predicated, would

HCP 312/2025 Page 4 of 6

Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document

be the sine qua non for the exercise of the power not being
satisfied;
(ii) in reaching such requisite satisfaction, the detaining
authority has applied its mind to all relevant circumstances
and the same is not based on material extraneous to the scope
and purpose of the statute;
(iii) power has been exercised for achieving the purpose for
which it has been conferred, or exercised for an improper
purpose, not authorised by the statute, and is therefore ultra
vires;
(iv) the detaining authority has acted independently or under
the dictation of another body;
(v) the detaining authority, by reason of self-created rules of
policy or in any other manner not authorized by the governing
statute, has disabled itself from applying its mind to the facts of
each individual case;
(vi) the satisfaction of the detaining authority rests on
materials which are of rationally probative value, and the
detaining authority has given due regard to the matters as per
the statutory mandate;
(vii) the satisfaction has been arrived at bearing in mind
existence of a live and proximate link between the past conduct
of a person and the imperative need to detain him or is based
on material which is stale;
(viii) the ground(s) for reaching the requisite satisfaction is/are
such which an individual, with some degree of rationality and
prudence, would consider as connected with the fact and
relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry in respect whereof
the satisfaction is to be reached;
(ix) the grounds on which the order of preventive detention
rests are not vague but are precise, pertinent and relevant
which, with sufficient clarity, inform the detenu the satisfaction
for the detention, giving him the opportunity to make a suitable
representation; and
(x) the timelines, as provided under the law, have been strictly
adhered to.”
09) The only thing that emerges from the perusal of the grounds of detention,
and the counter affidavit, filed against the petition in hand, is that the
detenue has inculcated a separatist ideology since his childhood, for, his
father has been an ex militant having surrendered in the year 1990. The said

HCP 312/2025 Page 5 of 6

Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document

assertion is delusory and the preventive detention, ordered so conveniently
on such imaginary belief, is nothing but an unmindful exercise of power.
09) It also needs to be emphasized here that the respondents have not shown any
subversive activity against the name of petitioner/ detenue which compelled
them to take recourse to preventive detention. The alleged anti-national
literature shown to have been seized from the detenue has also presumably
weighed with the respondents to brand the detenue as an anti-national,
however, the said literature has wrongly been attributed to the detenue having
been authored by him. The learned counsel for the petitioner is quite justified in
submitting that the petitioner, being an academic scholar, is expected to be in
possession of variety of literary means, therefore, a mere possession of the
books with dispiriting titles does not ipso facto make the petitioner/ detenue a
criminal against whom the preventive detention was required to be invoked.
10) In view of above, the petition succeeds and is allowed as such, in consequence
whereof, the impugned detention order bearing No. 27-DMK/PSA of 2025
dated 13.09.2025, issued by respondent no. 2 is quashed. The detenue Shafat
Maqbool Wani S/o Mohammad Maqbool Wani R/o Kukroosa, Tehsil
Vilgam, District Kupwara, A/P Khunbal, Handwara is directed to be
released from preventive custody forthwith.
11) The detention record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents.


(Moksha Khajuria Kazmi)
Judge
Srinagar
02.09.2026
Mohammad Yaseen Dar, PS

Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No

HCP 312/2025 Page 6 of 6

Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document