MEHRAJ UD DIN BHAT vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME)
- Court
- Jammu and Kashmir High Court
1
P a g e |
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
HCP No.218/2025
Reserved on: 04.06.2026
Pronounced on: 06.06.2026
Uploaded on: _____________
Operative part or full judgment - Full
Mehraj ud din Bhat
S/O Late Mohammad Sidiq Bhat,
R/O Pandach 90 Ft. Road Srinagar.
…Petitioner(s)
Through: Adv. Wajid Md. Haseeb.
Vs.
1. Union Territory of J&K through
Principal Secretary to Govt.,
Home Department,
Civil Sectt. Srinagar.
2. District Magistrate,
Srinagar.
3. Sr. Superintendent of Police,
Srinagar.
…Respondent(s)
Through: Sr.AAG Mohsin Qadri with
Adv. Haaris Khan, AC.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. A.CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the
Detention Order No. DMS/PSA/28/2025 dated 02.06.2025
2
P a g e |
(‘impugned order’ for short) passed by respondent No.2-District
Magistrate Srinagar under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir
Public Safety Act, 1978, whereby the petitioner has been placed
under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting
in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.
2. The impugned detention order has been assailed mainly on the
following grounds:-
(i) that the detention order is founded upon stale, remote and
irrelevant allegations dating back to the years 1989–1992;
(ii) that after the petitioner was released in the year 1992, no
specific prejudicial activity has been attributed to him and
the grounds of detention contain only vague and
generalized allegations;
(iii) that the petitioner had submitted a representation dated
13.06.2025 which has not been considered;
(iv) that the material relied upon by the detaining authority
was not supplied to the detenue in a vernacular language,
thereby depriving him of making an effective and
meaningful representation as guaranteed under Article
22(5) of the Constitution.
3. Per contra, respondents in their counter affidavit, contended that
the petitioner has been pursuing anti-national ideology since his
childhood; that he initially associated himself with ‘JKLF’ outfit
and thereafter maintained links with different secessionist and
militant outfits culminating in association with ‘TRF’ organization;
3
P a g e |
that he has been instigating youth against the democratic system
and acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State;
that the petitioner was bound down on five occasions and his
activities necessitated preventive detention.
4. Respondents further asserted that the detenue was an active
conduit of banned outfit LeT and oftenly aided and abetted terror
activities in an around Pandach area; that he was also involved in
instigating and motivating the youth of Srinagar district and its
adjoining areas so as to join terror ranks; that his activities had
created enormous hardships for the public to lead a normal life;
that he was providing logistic support to the terrorists and was
indulging into activities prejudicial to the security of State.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the detention
record and considered the same.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the case submits
that it seems that the detention order has been passed on
mistaken identity as the petitioner has never associated himself
with any person or organization as referred to in the grounds of
detention; that the allegations made in the grounds of detention
are vague, non-existent and no prudent man can make a
representation against such allegation and passing of detention
order on such ground is unjustified and unreasonable; that the
detaining authority has shown its awareness that the detenue
has been released way back in 1992, however, the detaining
authority has not spelled out the compelling reasons to pass the
detention order, once the petitioner was already released and
exonerated more than thirty years ago; that the detention order
4
P a g e |
suffers from non-application of mind and deserves to be
quashed.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports
the detention order and states that the petitioner was deeply
influenced by radical ideology and came into contact with active
terrorists and OGWs of banned organizations; that the petitioner
was providing logistic support to the banned terrorist
organizations operating in the area; that there is no vagueness or
staleness in the grounds of detention; that the petitioner did no
mend his ways despite being given numerous chances with the
hope that he will live a normal life; that the petitioner continued to
indulge in the activities which are prejudicial to the security of the
State;; that the impugned detention order does not suffer from
any legal infirmity at all.
8. The grounds of detention reveal that the foundation of the
detention order rests substantially on allegations that the
petitioner crossed over to Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) in
the year 1989 when he was admittedly a juvenile, received
training there and returned in the year 1990. It is further alleged
that he was arrested by BSF in the year 1991 and remained in
their custody for about twenty months before being released in
the year 1992.
9. Significantly, beyond the aforesaid events, which are more than
three decades old, no concrete incident, FIR, overt act, recovery,
meeting, communication or specific prejudicial activity has been
attributed to the petitioner. The grounds merely state in general
terms that the petitioner continues to harbor anti-national
5
P a g e |
ideology, influences youth and poses a threat to the security of
the State.
10. Preventive detention is not intended to punish a person for past
conduct but to prevent him from engaging in future prejudicial
activities. There must exist a live and proximate link between the
past conduct relied upon and the necessity of detention. The
incidents relied upon by the detaining authority pertain to the
years 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992. The detention order has been
passed in the year 2025, after a gap of approximately thirty-three
years from the petitioner's release.
11. Respondents have failed to point out any specific prejudicial
activity attributable to the petitioner during this enormous
interregnum. The Supreme Court in Rekha v. State of Tamil
Nadu, (2011) 5 SCC 244 , observed that:
"Preventive detention is by nature repugnant to
democratic ideas and an anathema to the rule of
law. No person can be preventively detained on
mere suspicion or ipse dixit."
12. The requirement of a live and proximate link between the alleged
activities and the order of detention has repeatedly been
emphasized by constitutional courts. Preventive detention
founded on stale and remote incidents cannot be sustained. This
Court has consistently held that stale incidents cannot furnish the
basis of preventive detention unless supported by fresh and
proximate material. In the present case, the foundational
allegations are separated from the detention order by more than
6
P a g e |
three decades. Such remote events have lost all rational nexus
with the purported object sought to be achieved through
preventive detention.
13. Perusal of the grounds of detention indicates that except referring
to the petitioner's alleged ideology, the detaining authority has
not specified any date of recent activity, any place where such
activity occurred, names of persons allegedly influenced by the
petitioner, any particular act of instigation or any recent criminal
case or investigation.
14. Allegations that the petitioner instigates youth, works against
democratic institutions or supports anti-national ideology, are
bald assertions unsupported by particulars. The constitutional
requirement is that grounds of detention must be sufficiently
definite to enable the petitioner to make an effective and
meaningful representation. Vague and indefinite allegations
render the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority
vulnerable. This Court has held that where allegations are vague
and lacking material particulars, the detention order cannot
survive judicial scrutiny. In the present case, the grounds are
conspicuously deficient in particulars. The petitioner, thus, could
not reasonably be expected to rebut such generalized
accusations.
15. The contention on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner
was bound down on five occasions, however, he did not mend
himself but mere existence of bound-down proceedings does not
automatically justify preventive detention. Such proceedings may
constitute relevant material only if accompanied by specific facts
7
P a g e |
demonstrating continuing and proximate prejudicial conduct. The
respondents have not placed on record any material showing the
nature of those proceedings, the allegations involved therein, or
how they establish an imminent threat to the security of the State.
In the absence of such particulars, reference to bound-down
proceedings remains insufficient to bridge the gap of more than
three decades.
16. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that although certain
documents were stated to have been supplied to him, the same
were furnished in English language. The respondents have not
placed any material on record to demonstrate that the grounds of
detention and the relied upon documents were translated into the
vernacular language, understandable to the petitioner. The
detention record in the present case does not reveal that
translation versions of the dossier, statements, reports and other
relied upon material was supplied to the petitioner in a language
understood by him. In the absence of supply of translated copies
of the relied upon documents, the constitutional safeguard
guaranteed under Article 22(5) stands violated. Consequently,
the petitioner was deprived of making an effective and
meaningful representation against his detention.
17. The record further reveals that while relying heavily on alleged
activities commencing from the petitioner's childhood, the
detaining authority failed to address the crucial fact that the
petitioner was a juvenile in the year 1989; that he had been
arrested in 1991; that he remained in custody for approximately
twenty months; that he was released in the year 1992; that no
8
P a g e |
concrete prejudicial act thereafter has been specified. These
circumstances ought to have persuaded the detaining authority to
examine whether any live and proximate material existed
warranting preventive detention in the year 2025. The omission
to do so reflects lack of real and independent application of mind.
18. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is satisfied that the
detention order is founded predominantly on stale and remote
incidents of the years 1989–1992; that no live and proximate link
exists between those incidents and the detention order passed in
the year 2025; that the other allegations contained in the grounds
of detention are vague, generalized and bereft of material
particulars; that the respondents have failed to establish supply
of all relied upon documents to the petitioner in a vernacular
language; and that the constitutional guarantees embodied in
Article 22(5) of the Constitution stand violated.
19. Preventive detention, being an exceptional measure which
authorizes deprivation of liberty without trial, requires strict
adherence to constitutional and statutory safeguards, which in
the present case seems to have become a casualty. Accordingly,
the petition is allowed and the Detention Order No.
DMS/PSA/28/2025 dated 02.06.2025 passed by respondent
No.2-District Magistrate, Srinagar under the Jammu and Kashmir
Public Safety Act, 1978, is hereby, quashed.
20. Respondents are directed to release the petitioner/detenue
forthwith from preventive custody provided he is not required in
connection with any other case(s).
9
P a g e |
21. Scanned detention record be returned to learned counsel for
respondents.
22. Disposed of, accordingly.
( M. A. CHOWDHARY )
JUDGE
Srinagar
06.06.2026
Muzammil. Q
Whether the order is reportable: Yes / No