VIKASH SINGH vs UT OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY HOME AND ORS
- Court
- Jammu and Kashmir High Court
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
HCP No. 53/2026
Reserved on: 15.10.2026
Pronounced on: 30.10.2026
Uploaded on: 30.10.2026
Whether the operative part or full judgment is
pronounced: Full Judgment
Vikash Singh
Age 27 years S/O Balbir Singh
R/O Village Bomal Kotgarhi
Tehsil Akhnoor District
Jammu
…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. G. S. Thakur, Advocate.
vs
1. Union Territory of
.…. Respondent(s)
Jammu and Kashmir
Th. its Commissioner
Secretary Home, Civil
Secretariat, Srinagar.
2. Senior Superintendent
of Police District
Jammu.
3. District Magistrate
Jammu.
Through: Mr. P. D. Singh, Dy. AG.
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged
detention order No. 08 PSA of 2026 dated 04.05.2026 (hereinafter to
be referred as ‘the Impugned order’), issued by the District Magistrate,
Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Detaining Authority’),
whereby Vikash Singh S/O Balbir Singh R/O Village Bomal Kotgarhi
Tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu Tehsil Akhnoor (hereinafter to be
referred as ‘the Detenue’) has been subjected to preventive detention
2 HCP No. 53/2026
with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order.
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that
the incidents relating to which FIRs have been registered against the
petitioner are not of such a nature as would endanger public order. It
has been contended that the activities in which the petitioner is
allegedly found to be involved can at best be a problem of law and
order, therefore, it was not open to the Detaining Authority to pass the
impugned order of detention on the basis of the said activities. Thus,
according to the petitioner, there has been non-application of mind on
part of the Detaining Authority and the subjective satisfaction has been
drawn by the said authority in a mechanical manner. It has been
contended that the grounds of detention are verbatim reproduction of
dossier prepared by the Sponsoring Agency, which reflects non-
application of mind on part of the Detaining Authority.
3. It has been further contended that the petitioner has not been provided
the entire material forming basis of grounds of detention, nor has he
been provided translated version of the said material, as a result of
which, he has been hampered in making an effective and suitable
representation against the order of detention, thereby violating his
valuable constitutional right. It has been contended that the previous
detention order passed against the petitioner has been quashed by this
Court vide judgment dated 01.11.2023, but the same does not find
mention in the grounds of detention, which reflects non-application of
mind on part of the Detaining Authority. It has also been contended
that representation made by the petitioner against the impugned order
3 HCP No. 53/2026
of detention before the Government and the Detaining Authority has
not been considered.
4. The respondents have contested the petition by filing the counter
affidavit of Detaining Authority, wherein it has been submitted that
the petitioner is a habitual criminal involved in various offences
including the offences punishable under Arms Act. According to the
Detaining Authority the repeated involvement of the petitioner in
criminal activities demonstrates that ordinary criminal law has proved
insufficient to deter him from continuing his unlawful activities which
are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and pose a serious
threat to the safety and security of public and their property. It has
been submitted that upon careful examination of the entire material,
requisite subjective satisfaction was recorded by the Detaining
Authority that preventive detention of detenue was necessary in the
interest of maintaining public order. Thus, according to the
respondents, the impugned detention order does not suffer from any
illegality or procedural infirmity.
5. It has been contended that all the statutory and constitutional
safeguards prescribed under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety
Act were duly complied with and grounds of detention along with
supporting material was furnished to the petitioner. He was also
informed about his right to make representation before the
Government and before the Detaining Authority. It has also been
contended that the representation filed by the petitioner was found to
be devoid of any merit and the same was rejected, regarding which a
4 HCP No. 53/2026
communication was addressed to the Superintendent District Jail,
Bhaderwah with a direction to inform the detenue.
6. In order to support its contention, the Detaining Authority has
produced the relevant record.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the
case including the detention record.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the
impugned detention order, has projected various grounds, but his main
thrust during the course of arguments was on the ground that the
representation submitted by the detenue against his detention has not
been considered by the respondents, thereby rendering the order of
detention unsustainable in law.
9. In the above context the record produced by the respondents reveals
that the petitioner has made a representation dated 23.05.2026 through
his father. The said representation was forwarded by the District
Magistrate, Jammu to the Government vide communication dated
29.05.2026. It seems that the representation of the petitioner has been
rejected by the Government and communication dated 14.07.2026 has
been addressed by the Government to the District Magistrate, Jammu
informing him about disposal of the representation of the petitioner. A
copy of the said communication has been addressed to the
Superintendent District Jail, Bhaderwah with a direction to inform the
detenue regarding disposal of the representation.
10. The question that arises for consideration is whether the delay of about
eight weeks occasioned in considering the representation of the
petitioner by the Government vitiates the impugned order of detention.
5 HCP No. 53/2026
11. The aforesaid question has been answered by the Supreme Court in
Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs. District Magistrate, Jabalpur and
others reported in (2021) 20 SCC 98 . It would be apt to refer to
observations made by the Supreme Court in para (47) of the judgment,
which is reproduced as under:-
“47. By delaying its decision on the representation, the State
Government deprived the detenue 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
detenue “as soon as may be” and the affording to the detenue 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 detenue 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
detenue. It is necessary to understand that the law provides for
such procedural safeguards 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 detenue that are fundamental to the laws of preventive
detention enshrined in the Constitution.”
12. From the foregoing analysis of law on the subject, 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 and
Kashmir Public Safety Act, which makes it obligatory on 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
6 HCP No. 53/2026
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 detenue emanating from the
provisions of Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act.
13. In the present case, there has been a delay of about eight weeks in
deciding the representation of the petitioner. This delay has remained
unexplained. There is nothing either in the detention record or in the
counter affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority to justify this delay.
The impugned order of detention, therefore, is vitiated.
14. Apart from above, there is no material available in the detention record
produced by the respondents to show that information regarding
disposal of representation has been furnished to the detenue. The only
record which is available is a communication dated 14.07.2026
addressed by the Government to the District Magistrate, Jammu
informing him about rejection of the representation of the petitioner.
Even though, a copy of the above communication has been addressed
to the Superintendent District Jail, Bhaderwah with a direction to
inform the petitioner about disposal of the representation, yet there is
nothing on record to show that information with regard to disposal of
his representation has actually been given to the detenue. While
forwarding the copy of the communication dated 14.07.2026 to the
7 HCP No. 53/2026
Superintendent District Jail, Bhaderwah, it has been specifically
provided that copy of the receipt/acknowledgement duly signed by the
detenue be forwarded to the Home Department and the Detaining
Authority, but there is no such receipt executed by the detenue
available in the record, meaning thereby that the information with
regard to disposal of his representation has never been furnished to
him.
15. The Supreme Court, in case of Sarabjeet Singh Mokha (Supra) has
held that omission to inform the detenue about the result of
representation vitiates the detention order. Thus, on this ground also,
the impugned order of detention is vitiated.
16. For what has been discussed hereinabove, the present petition is
allowed and the impugned detention order is quashed. The respondents
are directed to release the petitioner from preventive detention
forthwith, provided he is not required in connection with any other
case.
17. The detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the
respondents against proper receipt.
18. Disposed of.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
Jammu
30.10.2026
Sahil Padha
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No.
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.
Sahil Padha
2026.10.30 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document