FAIZAN YASEEN SHALLA vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 29.08.2026
Pronounced on: 08.09.2026
Uploaded on: 08.09.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full

HCP No.138/2025
FAIZAN YASEEN SHALLA
...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S)
Through: - Mr. Tassaduq H. Khawaja, Sr. Adv., with
Mr. Naseer-ul-Akbar, Advocate.
Vs.
UT OF J&K &ORS ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel, vice
Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1)
Impugned in this petition is the detention order bearing
No. DMS/PSA/18/2025 dated 07.05.2025, issued by District
Magistrate, Srinagar, whereby the detenue, namely, Faizan
Yaseen Shalla , has been placed under preventive detention
for preventing him from indulging in the activities which are
detrimental to the security of the State.
2) It has been contended 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



HCP No.138/2025 Page 1 of 8

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 contended that the last
alleged activity attributed to the detenue as per the grounds
of detention has taken place in the year 2017 and thereafter
no fresh activity has been attributed to him, as such, there is
a delay of more than six years between the last alleged
activity and the order of detention and this delay has
snapped the proximity of the alleged activity and the order of
detention. It has also been contended that the procedural
safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case,
inasmuch as whole of the material which formed basis of the
grounds of detention and the translated version thereof has
not been supplied to the petitioner and that the
representation filed by the petitioner against his detention
has not been considered well in time.
3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have
contended that while issuing the impugned detention order,
all the statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees
have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining
authority. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds
of detention along with the material relied upon by the
detaining authority were handed over to the detenue and the



HCP No.138/2025 Page 2 of 8

same were read over and explained to him. 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 is also averred in
the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and
constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied
with by the detaining authority. The respondents have
produced the detention record to lend support to the stand
taken in the counter affidavit.
4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
record of the case.
5) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking
quashment of the impugned order, projected various grounds
but his main thrust, during the course of arguments, was on
the ground that the grounds of detention are vague, cryptic
lacking in material particulars, which prevented the detenue
from making an effective and suitable representation against
his detention
6) In the above context, it will be profitable to extract the
relevant portions of the grounds of detention, which read
thus:
“….you were deeply influenced by radical ideology
and came into contact with active terrorists and
OGWs of banned outfit TRF who motivated you to



HCP No.138/2025 Page 3 of 8

work for the outfit as an Over Ground Worker for
providing logistic support…..”
“…..you because a hardcore fundamentalist and
sympathizer of terrorist and also provided logistic
support to the terrorists…”
“….you have been found to be a close supporter and
harbourer of terrorists….”
7) A perusal of the above quoted extracts of the grounds of
detention clearly shows that the same are vague lacking in
material particulars. In the grounds of detention, there is no
mention of the particulars of the places and the identity of
the alleged terrorists of banned outfit TRF with whom he had
come into contact, nor there is any mention of the particulars
of the terrorists to whom the petitioner had provided the
logistic support. The particulars of the period when the
detenue is alleged to have come into contact with these
terrorists and when he provided logistic support to them are
also not mentioned in the grounds of detention. Thus, the
grounds, being vague lacking in material particulars, the
detenue could not have made an effective representation
against his detention.
8) Article 22(5) mandates that each ground for detention
must be individually specified and not vague, ensuring
transparency and accountability in the detention process.
The grounds must not be vague, indefinite or general. Vague



HCP No.138/2025 Page 4 of 8

allegations make it impossible for the detenu to understand
the reasons and effectively challenge the detention.
9) A Division Bench of this Court in the recent case titled
“ Imran Rashid Rather vs. UT of J&K ” 2024 LiveLaw (JKL)
351 has, while deliberating upon the effect of vagueness of
the grounds of detention on the subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authority, observed as under:-
“Therefore, this Court holds that vague and non-
specific grounds of detention firstly, violates the
fundamental right to life and personal liberty of
the detenue under article 21 of the constitution
as it summarily curtails the liberty of the citizen
based on the subjective satisfaction of the
executive which is an exceptional power as
against the general law relating to arrest and
detention. Secondly, it deprives the detenue of
giving a specific rebuttal to the grounds of
detention which may satisfy the detaining
authority or the Government that his detention is
unlawful and compels him to answer the grounds
of detention as "it is incorrect" or "it is false" etc.
Thirdly, vague and generalised grounds in the
order of detention, smacks of arbitrariness on the
part of the detaining authority rendering the
subjective satisfaction arrived at as violative
of article 14 of the constitution and fourthly,
vague and non-specific grounds raise the
impression that the same has been done
deliberately in order to deprive the detenu of
giving a precise rebuttal. Malafide in fact may be
difficult to establish as they must be pleaded with
specific facts, but the lack of bonafides 1State of
Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma,1992 Supp(1) SCC 222,
paragraph 49 - State of Punjab Vs. Gurdial
Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 471, paragraph 9 -Pooja
Batra Vs. Union of India and others, (2009) 5
SCC 296, paragraphs 18,40 and 41 may be
presumed where the executive act results in the
deprivation of personal liberty from a detention
order based on vague grounds. In such cases,
the lack of bonafides is to be presumed due to a
cavalier or casual exercise of the authority to
detain the citizen without any specific ill will or



HCP No.138/2025 Page 5 of 8

personal animosity. The lack of bonafides is on
account of failure to take due care and act
without introspection, blindly on the report of the
SP without insisting on supporting material which
justifies the deprivation of liberty.”
10) From the above analysis of the law, it is manifest that
vagueness of grounds of detention strikes at the root of the
subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority thereby
vitiating the order of detention. On this ground alone, the
impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.
11) It has next been contended by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner that, even though it is
mentioned in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was
bound down in terms of Sections 126/170 of the BNSS on as
many as three occasions, yet there is nothing on record to
show as to what was the outcome of the proceedings initiated
against the petitioner. It has been contended that no material
has been placed on record by the respondents to show
whether, pursuant to the breach of the bonds by the
petitioner, any proceedings were initiated against him in
terms of the provisions of the BNSS. According to the learned
Senior Counsel, unless it is shown that there were compelling
reasons for the detaining authority to resort to preventive
detention, even after having proceeded against the petitioner
in terms of Sections 126/170 of the BNSS, the order of
detention cannot be sustained.



HCP No.138/2025 Page 6 of 8

12) In the above context, if we have a look at the grounds of
detention, it is clearly indicated therein that the petitioner
was bound down on 04.09.2025, 15.04.2025 and 29.04.2025
under Sections 126/170 of the BNSS. It has also been
recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner did
not mend his ways and continued to indulge in activities
which are prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of
the UT of J&K. No particulars of such activities have been
mentioned in the grounds of detention. There is nothing on
record to show what was the outcome of the proceedings
initiated against the petitioner under Sections 126/170 of the
BNSS. It is also not forthcoming as to whether or not the
competent authority proceeded to take the proceedings
initiated against the petitioner under Sections 127/170 of the
BNSS to their logical conclusion in accordance with the
provisions contained in the BNSS. The failure on the part of
the respondents to place on record the proceedings and
outcome of the proceedings initiated under Sections 127/170
of the BNSS is fatal (Refer: Abinash Kumar vs. UT of J&K,
2024 SCC OnLine J&K 901 ).
13) Besides this, in the grounds of detention, it has not
been spelled out as to what were the compelling reasons for
the detaining authority to resort to the measure of preventive



HCP No.138/2025 Page 7 of 8

detention against the petitioner, even after binding him down
in terms of Sections 126/170 of the BNSS. So far as the beat
reports dated 14.04.2025 and 30.04.2025 mentioned in the
grounds of detention are concerned, it is to be noted that only
vague allegations have been made in the said reports. No
specific overt activity has been attributed to the petitioner in
these beat reports. Therefore, on the basis of these vague
beat reports, it cannot be stated that the detaining authority
had compelling reasons to pass the impugned order of
detention. On this ground also the impugned order of
detention is not sustainable in law.
14) For the afore-stated reasons, the petition is allowed and
the impugned detention order is quashed. The respondents
are directed to release the petitioner from the preventive
custody forthwith, provided he is not required in connection
with any other case.
15) The detention record be returned to learned counsel for
the respondents.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
Srinagar:
08.09.2026
“Bhat Altaf-Secretary”

Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No



HCP No.138/2025 Page 8 of 8

KARAM CHAND
2026.09.08 00:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document