MUSHTAQ AHMAD BEIGH vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ANR. (HOME)

1
P a g e |

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR




HCP No. 191/2025

Reserved on: 22.04.2026


Pronounced on: 29.04.2026
Uploaded on: 30.04.2026

Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced - Full

Mushtaq Ahmad Beigh,
S/O Lae Habibullah Beigh,
(Through his wife Posha Begum)
R/O Shart Mohalla, Jahama, Kupwara.
…Petitioner(s)


Through: Adv. Imtiyaz Ahmad Sofi.


Vs.


1. Union Territory of J&K through
Principal Secretary to Govt.,
Home Department,
Civil Sectt. Srinagar.

2. District Magistrate, Kupwara.



…Respondent(s)

Through: GA Faheem Nisar Shah.


CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE


JUDGMENT


1. The Supreme Court of India and various High Courts have consistently
described preventive detention as a "draconian" measure, a "necessary
evil," and a "jurisdiction of suspicion" that acts as a serious invasion of
personal liberty. Judicial observations frequently emphasize that while
constitutionally permitted, preventive detention should be used

2
P a g e |

sparingly, particularly as it often functions as a "curse" to democracy by
allowing the State to detain individuals without trial.

2. The petitioner herein has questioned the legality, validity, and propriety
of the impugned detention Order No. 03-DMK/PSA of 2025 dated
29.04.2025 , passed by the District Magistrate, Kupwara-respondent
No.2, in exercise of powers under Section 8(1)(a)(i) of the J&K Public
Safety Act, 1978, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the security of the UT of J&K.

3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, P.D Handwara, submitted a
dossier to the District Magistrate, Kupwara, regarding the involvement
of the petitioner in two FIRs. The details of the FIRs are (i) FIR No.
227/2001 registered under Section 7/25 Arms Act at Police Station
Handwara, and (ii) FIR No. 04/2025 under Section 8/20 NDPS Act at
Police Station, Qalamabad, thus, the detention of the petitioner was
sought as his activities were considered prejudicial to the security of the
UT of J&K.

4. The District Magistrate, Kupwara, after considering the relevant
material, passed the detention order against the petitioner on the basis
that the petitioner is influenced towards subversive and anti national
activities and the same will prove detrimental to the security of the UT
of J&K; that in case the detenue remains free at this point of time there
would be every chance that he would devise a plan with his likeminded
people, which in all possibilities would be a threat to the security of the
UT of J&K. Furthermore, the previous behavior of the petitioner depicts
his inclination towards secessionism, terrorism and anti national
activities which have been assessed to pose a serious threat to the

3
P a g e |

security of the UT of J&K, thus, the detaining authority ordered his
detention under the provisions of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.

5. The petitioner has challenged the order of detention on the grounds that
the detaining authority cannot detain the petitioner either on the grounds
on which he was earlier detained or by clubbing the earlier grounds with
new ones as per Section 19 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978; that the
right to personal liberty of an individual is transcendental, sacrosanct,
and inviolable, therefore, it is placed on the highest pedestal and cannot
be interfered with, in a casual and mechanical manner by resorting to
such a draconian legislation as no person can be deprived of this right
unreasonably and arbitrarily; and that the grounds of detention lack a
live and proximate link to the object of maintaining security of the UT
of J&K.

6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is submitted that due
to the continuous and repeated involvement of the petitioner in
subversive activities, which were prejudicial to the security of the UT of
J&K, there was strong apprehension that he may again indulge in such
activities. It is further submitted that the petitioner is sympathetic
towards unlawful elements and ideologies that promote violence and is
a constant threat to the security of the UT of J&K, therefore, in order to
prevent the petitioner from expanding his criminal activities and
disturbing security of the UT of J&K, the detention was deemed
necessary.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered
the matter.

8. Grounds of detention reveal that the detenue has been influenced
towards antinational and subversive activities and in case the detenue

4
P a g e |

remains free, there would be every apprehension that he would be a
threat to the security of the UT of J&K and his involvement in criminal
cases depicts his anti-national ideology. With no specific allegations on
these counts, his involvement has been shown in the commission of
offences in two cases registered vide FIR No. 227/2001 registered under
Section 7/25 Arms Act at Police Station Handwara and FIR No.
04/2025 under Section 8/20 NDPS Act at Police Station, Qalamabad,
with no details as to his trial or its outcome. Involvement of the detenue
in the year 2001 case, is a stale ground to base the detention in the
month of April, 2025, after a period of more than twenty four years.
The other grounds of detention, as such, are general allegations against
the detenue, with no specific instances/incidents. The detention order
based on such vague and stale grounds is not sustainable for the reason
that the detaining authority before passing the order has not applied its
mind to draw subjective satisfaction to order detention of the detenue by
curtailing his liberty which is a valuable and cherishable right
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

9. In the case of
“Sama Aruna Vs State of Telangana and others,”
reported in (2018)12 SCC 150 against a detention order dated
23.11.2016 based upon the grounds of detention which came to be
referred to two criminal cases against the detenue, involving him in 9 to
14 years old incidents resulting in FIRs held in paragraph 17 which
reads as under:-

“17. We are, therefore, satisfied that the aforesaid
detention order was passed on grounds which are
stale and which could not have been considered as
relevant for arriving at the subjective satisfaction
that the detenu must be detained. The detention
order must be based on a reasonable prognosis of

5
P a g e |

the future behavior of a person based on his past
conduct in light of the surrounding circumstances.
The live and proximate link that must exist
between the past conduct of a person and the
imperative need to detain him must be taken to
have been snapped in this case. A detention order
which is founded on stale incidents, must be
regarded as an order of punishment for a crime,
passed without a trial, though purporting to be an
order of preventive detention. The essential
concept of preventive detention is that the
detention of a person is not to punish him for
something he has done but to prevent him from
doing it. See G. Reddeiah v. Government of
Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (2012) 2 SCC 389, and
P.U. Iqbal v. Union of India and Ors. (1992) 1
SCC 434.”


10. On the touchstone of the law laid down above and the submissions
made by both the sides, the order of detention, impugned in the
present petition, does not sustain for the reason that the detenue, as
discussed hereinabove, was ordered to be detained vide impugned
detention order on stale grounds with no live and proximate link with
the past conduct of the detenue and the imperative need to detain him.
The other grounds, without any specific activities with regard to
place, time and nature fall just within speculative arena, as such, it
cannot be said that the District Magistrate had passed the impugned
detention order on due application of mind. The detenue in absence of
specific grounds was not able to make an effective representation,
either to the detaining authority or to the Government of J&K within
statutory period. Therefore, the detenue has been denied the legal,
statutory and constitutional safeguards against his detention, rendering
his detention unconstitutional.

11. In the afore-stated backdrop, this petition is allowed. Impugned Order

of detention No. 03-DMK/PSA of 2025 dated 29.04.2025 passed by
District Magistrate, Kupwara is, as such, quashed. The detenue

6
P a g e |

namely Mushtaq Ahmad Beigh S/O Late Habibullah Beigh R/O Shart
Mohalla, Jahama, Kupwara, is ordered to be released from the
preventive custody, forthwith, provided he is not required in
connection with any other case(s).

12. Scanned copy of the detention record is directed to be returned back
to the learned counsel for the respondents.

13. Petition disposed of, as above alongwith pending application(s).

(M. A. CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
Srinagar
29.04.2026
Muzammil. Q


Whether the judgment/order is reportable: Yes