UMER HAMID SHEIKH vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 21.10.2026
Pronounced on: 30.10.2026
Uploaded on: 30.10.2026
Whether the operative part
or full judgment is
pronounced: Full
HCP No.204/2025
UMER HAMID SHEIKH
...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S)
Through: - Mr. Tuba Manzoor, Advocate.
Vs.
UT OF J&K & ORS.
…RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. M. Younis Assisting Counsel.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1)
This petition has been filed by the petitioner through
his mother for quashing the order of detention bearing
No.DMS/PSA/24/2025 dated 02.06.2025 issued by
respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Srinagar, whereby the
petitioner has been detained under section 8 of the J&K
Public Safety Act.
2) The order of detention has been impugned on the
following grounds:
(a) That the detenue is totally an innocent person and has
not committed any offence and has not behaved or
HCP No.204/2025 Page 1 of 9

acted himself in any such way or manner which could be
construed to be an activity against the security of the
state.

(b) That detenue was provided with order of detention, copy
of dossier and copy of grounds of detention, but the
same were not explained to him, which has deprived
him from making an effective representation against the
impugned order.

(c) That there has been non-application of mind on the part
of the detaining authority while passing the impugned
order as there was absolutely nothing against the
petitioner in the dossier produced by the respondent
No.3.
(d) That the same allegations have been reproduced in the
grounds of detention have already been dealt with by
this Court while quashing the earlier detention order
dated 23.02.2021 passed against the petitioner.
3) The respondents have filed the response stating therein
that the detenue was deeply influenced by radical ideology
and came into contact with active terrorists and OGWs of
Jem outfit who motivated him to work as an OGW for
providing logistic support. It has been contended that in view
of his involvement in illegal/unlawful activities and in order
to curtail his activities, the petitioner was detained under
the provisions of the Public Safety Act vide order dated
22.02.2021, which order was, however, quashed by this
HCP No.204/2025 Page 2 of 9

Court. It has been contended that, after his release, the
detenue again indulged in anti-national activities and did
not mend his ways and with a view to prevent him from
acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the state,
he was detained in terms of the impugned order after
following all requisite formalities. It has also been averred
that the material relied upon by the detaining authority has
been furnished to the petitioner and he was informed that
he has a right to file a representation to the government
against the impugned order of detention.
4) In terms of order dated 21.09.2026, after taking note of
the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner,
the petitioner was permitted to file affidavit, which came to
be filed by the petitioner through the medium of CM
No.6858/2026. In the affidavit filed by the mother of the
petitioner, through whom this writ petition has been filed by
him, it is stated that she had submitted a representation for
revoking the order of detention issued against the petitioner,
but she was never informed by the concerned authority with
regard to decision, if any, taken upon the said
representation.
5) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the request for detaining the petitioner was made by the
HCP No.204/2025 Page 3 of 9

sponsoring agency in the month of May 2025, whereas the
order of detention came to be passed after one month and
the delay in passing the order of detention on the dossier
submitted in the month of May 2025 by the sponsoring
agency, in itself, is indicative of the fact that there was no
urgency to detain the petitioner and on this ground only, the
order of detention is required to be quashed. He has further
argued that the representation submitted by mother of the
petitioner was never decided by the respondents and further
the complete material relied upon by the detaining authority
was not provided to the petitioner.
6) Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents
submits that after the quashing of the earlier detention
order, the petitioner did not mend his behavior and again
indulged in anti-national activities which is duly
substantiated by the Patrol Book reports dated 27.09.2024
and 01.03.2025, and Beat Book report dated 30.04.2025,
and, accordingly, the petitioner was detained so as to
prevent him from indulging in the activities prejudicial to the
security of the State. He has further submitted that the
representation was decided and the petitioner was duly
informed.

7) Heard and perused the record.
HCP No.204/2025 Page 4 of 9

8) The perusal of the record reveals that the sponsoring
agency, i.e. respondent No. 3, through the medium of
communication dated 07.05.2025, requested the detaining
authority to detain the petitioner, whereas the detention
order has been passed on 02.06.2025. Thus, there is a gap
of more than 25 days between the communication addressed
by respondent No. 3 and the order of detention and this delay
has not been explained by the respondents. Had they
explained the delay, the position would have been different,
but the absence of plausible explanation by the respondents
for the delay of 25 days between the proposal for detaining
the petitioner and the order of detention, is indicative of the
fact that there was no urgency to detain the petitioner. Had
there been any such urgency, respondent No. 2 would have
acted upon the sponsoring agency's communication
immediately.
9) It is borne out from the record that the petitioner was
earlier detained in terms of order of detention dated
22.02.2021, which was quashed in terms of the judgment
dated 04.08.2023. Thereafter, the detaining authority, while
preparing the grounds of detention, after taking note of the
quashing of the order of detention in terms of judgment
supra, placed reliance upon the Patrol Book reports and
Beat Book report, and recorded its satisfaction that it was
HCP No.204/2025 Page 5 of 9

necessary to detain the petitioner. Perusal of the Patrol Book
reports and the Beat report reveal that they are vague and
contradictory in itself. Once the Beat report and Patrol Book
reports are vague and contradictory in itself, the same could
not have been relied upon by the detaining authority to
detain the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court is of the
considered view that on this ground only, the order of
detention is not sustainable, as there was, in fact, no
material before the detaining authority to record its
satisfaction that the petitioner has indulged in activities
prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the State.
10) The perusal of record further reveals that the
representation was made by mother of the petitioner to the
Government and the District Magistrate during public
hearing held on 16.07.2025, and in terms of communication
dated 22.07.2025, comments were sought from Additional
DGP, CID. Thereafter, in terms of order dated 15.09.2025,
the said representation came to be rejected by the
Government, and the same was served upon the petitioner
on 17.09.2025. There is delay of nearly two months in
deciding the representation which has not been explained by
the respondents. The question that arises for determination
HCP No.204/2025 Page 6 of 9

is as to whether delayed consideration of representation
satisfies the requirement of law.
11) The aforesaid question has been answered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarabjeet Singh Mokha
vs. District Magistrate, Jabalpur and others (2021) 20
SCC 98. It would be apt to refer to observations made by the
Supreme Court in para 47 of the judgment, which are
reproduced as under:-
“47. By delaying its decision on the
representation, the State Government
deprived the detenu of the valuable right
which emanates from the provisions
of Section 8(1) of having the
representation being considered
expeditiously. As we have noted earlier,
the communication of the grounds of
detention to the detenu “as soon as may
be” and the affording to the detenu of the
earliest opportunity of making a
representation against the order of
detention to the appropriate government
are intended to ensure that the
representation of the detenu is
considered by the appropriate
government with a sense of immediacy.
The State Government failed to do so.
The making of a reference to the Advisory
Board could not have furnished any
justification for the State Government
not to deal with the representation
independently at the earliest. The delay
by the State Government in disposing of
the representation and by the Central
and State Governments in
communicating such rejection, strikes at
the heart of the procedural rights and
guarantees granted to the detenu. It is
necessary to understand that the law
provides for such procedural safeguards
HCP No.204/2025 Page 7 of 9

to balance the wide powers granted to
the executive under the NSA. The State
Government cannot expect this Court to
uphold its powers of subjective
satisfaction to detain a person, while
violating the procedural guarantees of
the detenu that are fundamental to the
laws of preventive detention enshrined
in the Constitution.”
12) From the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, it is manifest that delaying of decision on the
representation of the detenue amounts to an infringement of
a valuable right which is available to a detenue in terms of
provisions contained in Section 13 of the Jammu & Kashmir
Public Safety Act, which makes it obligatory for the detaining
authority to communicate to the detenue the grounds on
which the order of detention has been made within a
maximum period of ten days from the date of detention and
to afford him the earliest opportunity of making
representation against the order of detention. The purpose
of furnishing the grounds of detention within a maximum
period of ten days is to enable a detenue to make a
representation against the order of detention at the earliest
opportunity. Thus, a duty is cast upon the detaining
authority or the government to consider the said
representation at the earliest opportunity. Failure to decide
the representation of a detenue within a reasonable time in
an expeditious manner strikes at the valuable right of a
HCP No.204/2025 Page 8 of 9

detenue emanating from the provisions of Section 13 of the
Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act. In the present case,
there is no explanation from the side of the respondents with
regard to the delay of about two months in deciding the
representation of the petitioner. This unexplained slackness
on the part of respondents to take a decision on the
representation of the petitioner renders the impugned order
of detention illegal.
13) 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.
14) The detention record be returned to learned counsel for
the respondents.
(Rajnesh Oswal)
Judge
Srinagar,
30.10.2026
“Bhat Altaf-Secretary”
Whether the judgment is reportable: YES/NO
HCP No.204/2025 Page 9 of 9