GULZAR AHMAD VAID vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME)
- Court
- Jammu and Kashmir High Court
No. 6
Regular Cause list
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
HCP 38/2025
Date of Pronouncement: 22.10.2026
Uploaded on : 23.10.2026
Gulzar Ahmad Vaid, Aged 23 years
S/O Mohd Yousuf Vaid
R/O Mukhdampora Marhama Bijbehara,
District Anantnag through his father
Mohammad Yousuf Ved, Aged 50 years
S/O Abdul Aziz Ved
R/O Mukhdampora, Marhama Bijbehara
District Anantnag
…Appellant(s)/Petitioners(s)
Through: Mr. M. Usman Gani, Advocate
Vs.
...Respondent(s)
1. UT of J&K, through Principal
Secretary to Govt., Home
Department, J&K, Civil Secretariat
Srinagar/Jammu
2. District Magistrate, Anantnag
Kashmir
3. Senior Superintendent of Police,
District Anantnag, Kashmir
4. Superintendent Central Jail Koth
Bhalwal Jammu
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE.
JUDGMENT
22.10.2026
(ORAL)
1. Petitioner, through his father, has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court,
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the quashment of order
dated 31.12.2024, whereby, he has been directed to be detained under the
provisions of Public Safety Act, 1978 [“PSA”].
2. As the factual matrix would unfold, Senior Superintendent of Police
(SSP), Anantnag- respondent No. 4, submitted a dossier to District
HCP 38/2025 1 | P a g e
Magistrate Anantnag- respondent No. 2, alleging inter alia that criminal
involvement of the petitioner had surfaced in the terror eco-system. A case
FIR No. 219/2022 for offences under Sections 120-B/130 IPC and 18 &
39 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act [“UAPA”] was registered at
Police Station Anantnag on 02.07.2022, whereby, it was alleged that some
inmates lodged in different jails had developed contacts with active
terrorist namely Sajad Gull, Sajad Jath @ Ali and Lateef Ahmad Rather
@ Abdullah Bai of LeT, a banned terrorist outfit. During investigation, an
OGW namely Aabid Ashraf Ganie disclosed that he had remained in close
contact with other OGWs, including the detenue, with a view to provide
logistic support/transportation to the terrorists. The sponsoring officer
asserted that though, due to insufficient evidence, arrest of the detenue
could not be affected, however, the investigating agency was on the job to
collect comprehensive evidence against the network and soon after it
would be collected, the detenue and his associates will be formally
arrested in the case. It was apprehended that if the detenue and his
associates would be allowed to remain at large, they will not only tamper
the evidence, but it may also prove fatal for the outcome of the case. The
detenue was bound down and released on surety bond and his activities
were kept under surveillance.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, SSP Anantnag, sponsored
detention of the detenue on the ground that he was deeply influenced by
anti-national narratives and associated with the terrorists operating in the
district.
4. On the basis of aforesaid dossier submitted by the sponsoring officer, the
detaining authority has concluded that since activities of the detenue were
HCP 38/2025 2 | P a g e
highly prejudicial to the integrity and sovereignty of the Union of India
and security of the Union Territory, as such, with a view to prevent him
from indulging in similar activities, it was imperative to detain him under
the provisions of PSA.
5. Petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order and his detention primarily
on the ground that grounds of detention are vague, irrelevant and non-
existent in the eyes of law. According to the petitioner, the allegations
contained in the dossier are bereft of specific details and without any
reference to his past conduct. According to the petitioner, the grounds of
detention, which are basis of impugned order, do not disclose any eminent
threat to the security of the Union Territory or sovereignty of the country.
6. It is contention of the petitioner that the detaining authority has not
followed the constitutional and statutory procedural safeguards, as
provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13
PSA.
7. According to the petitioner, the vague allegations against him are based on
mere whims, caprices and surmises of the detaining authority and are
ipso-facto insufficient and inconsistent with the provisions of PSA and the
grounds of detention, being bereft of specific details renders the order of
detention non-existent in the eyes of law.
8. Petitioner has prayed for quashment of the impugned order and his
immediate release from the detention.
9. The plea has been opposed on the other side by the respondents, primarily
reiterating the dossier and the grounds of detention. According to the
respondents, none of the legal, constitutional, fundamental or statutory
right of the petitioner is found to have been violated, as the impugned
HCP 38/2025 3 | P a g e
order came to be passed by the detaining authority only after the statutory
requirements and constitutional guarantees were scrupulously adhered to.
10. It is contention of the respondents that the detenue was not only informed
about his right of making representation to the detaining authority, as also
to the Government, but his signatures to this effect were also obtained on
the execution report. It is contended that the examination of the material
as well as detention order by the Government, as also by the Advisory
Board is a proof that detention order was confirmed by the competent
authority after due diligence and following the constitutional mandates.
According to the respondents, since the grounds of detention sufficiently
connect the detenue with the activities those are prejudicial to the integrity
of the country and security of Union Territory, present petition is liable to
be dismissed.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the
detention record.
12. It is by far a settled position of law that security of the State and
maintenance of public peace and tranquility is an absolute and exclusive
domain of the executive and subjective satisfaction of the detaining
authority to detain a person, when he refuses to desist from his anti-social
or anti-national activities, is not open to the objective assessment of the
writ court. However, it is equally trite that liberty of an individual cannot
be curtailed on omnibus and dogmatic allegations of the sponsoring
officer. True it is, that writ court is not vested with the power or
jurisdiction to substitute its view with the satisfaction of the detaining
authority, however, conduct of the detaining authority exercising such a
vast jurisdiction of pre-trial detention, should also be reasonable and in
HCP 38/2025 4 | P a g e
consonance with the concept of fairness. It is the rule of law which should
guide the detaining authority to act in a manner, which is fair and
reasonable, having due regard to the concept of fundamental right of life
and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
13. Coming back to the case, petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order,
primarily on the ground of vagueness of allegations and absence of “live
and proximate link” between the sole criminal activity attributed to him
and the impugned order of detention. It is contention of the petitioner that
since the grounds of detention are vague in nature, it prevented him from
making an effective representation, as a result whereof, his fundamental
right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was
infringed.
14. A perusal of the record would show that the detenue came to be detained
on the basis of solitary FIR, i.e., FIR No. 219/2022, whereby, it was
alleged that some inmates lodged in different jails had made contact with
active terrorist namely Sajad Gull, Sajad Jath @ Ali and Lateef Ahmad
Rather @ Abdullah Bai of banned terrorist LeT outfit. They hatched
criminal conspiracy to carry out terrorist activities in the valley in general
and District Anantnag in particular, by carrying out attacks on the
security forces/police forces with the object to commit anti-national
activities, which are prejudicial to the integrity and sovereignty of the
country and UT of J&K. It is also alleged that during investigation, OGW
Aabid Ashraf Ganie disclosed that he was close associate of killed
terrorist Uzair Khan, a resident of Nagam Kokernag of LeT outfit and he
has been working as OGW. He also disclosed that he remained in close
contact with other OGWs of different areas, including the detenue.
HCP 38/2025 5 | P a g e
15. It is intriguing to note that it is own case of the respondents that
investigating agency is on the job to collect comprehensive evidence
against the network and soon after evidence would be collected, the
detenue and his associates will be formally arrested. If the grounds of
detention are carefully glanced over, it is manifest that detenue came to be
detained in the present case on the basis of mere apprehension and without
any evidence in the sole FIR against him, which is not permissible in law.
16. It is also contention of the respondents that detenue was bound down and
released on surety bond and his activities were kept under surveillance.
However, neither the recommending officer nor the detaining authority
has recorded any reason, as to how the security proceedings were found
insufficient to prevent the detenue from engaging in activities prejudicial
to the sovereignty & integrity of the country and security of the Union
Territory. After a passing reference to the magisterial proceedings,
purportedly under Section 129 BNSS, the dossier and the grounds of
detention are ominously silent about further details of the proceedings, as
to whether he was ever served upon any show-cause notice by the
concerned Executive Magistrate, as to why he should not execute a bond
for good behavior or whether he was required to execute an interim bond
as an immediate measure envisaged under Section 135(3) BNSS and if he
executed any such bond, whether he violated the terms and conditions of
the bond.
17. True it is, that preventive detention under PSA is a distinct executive
measure, independent of the security proceedings, under BNSS and both
can co-exist, however, when a detenue is stated to be facing legal
proceedings under Section 129 BNSS, the detaining authority is obliged to
HCP 38/2025 6 | P a g e
demonstrate the compelling reasons as to why security proceedings were
insufficient to prevent him from engaging in activities prejudicial to the
security of the State or sovereignty of the country. Preventive detention
cannot be invoked by the executive unless there are compelling reasons
and emergency based justifications, which could not be addressed by the
ordinary law of land.
18. Another aspect of the matter, which needs attention of this Court is
inordinate delay in the disposal of representation of the detenue.
19. The detenue preferred a representation against his detention to the
department of Home. The representation was sent to District Magistrate
by the Department of Home on 03.02.2025, and it came to be disposed of
on 22.04.2025, i.e., after a delay of two and a half months.
20. The constitutional safeguards guaranteed to a citizen under Article 22(5)
of the Constitution of India are of vital significance in the matter of
preventive detention, where a person is deprived of his personal liberty at
a pre-trial stage. The constitutional mandate is not restricted to merely
affording an opportunity to the detenue to make a representation, but it
extends to the consideration of his representation and communication of
its decision with reasonable dispatch and expedition.
21. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Sarabjeet Singh Mokha Vs. District
Magistrate, Jabalpur & Ors. (2021) 20 SCC 98 ” has held that the
Government by delaying the consideration and disposal of representation
deprives the detenue of the valuable right under Section 8(1) of PSA.
Relevant observation contained in para 47, for the facility of reference, is
extracted below:
HCP 38/2025 7 | P a g e
“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 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.”
22. It is evident from the aforesaid observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court
that delay in deciding the representation of a detenue amounts to
infringement of his valuable right, which is available to him in terms of
provisions of Section 13 PSA.
23. If the present case is approached with the aforesaid observations of the
Apex Court, it is manifest that inordinate delay on the part of Department
of Home in deciding the representation of the detenue in the present case
renders the impugned detention order illegal.
24. Viewed from every angle, the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2
does not sustain in the eyes of law. Hence, present petition is allowed and
impugned order, is quashed.
HCP 38/2025 8 | P a g e
25. The detenue is directed to be immediately released from the detention,
provided he is not involved in any other case.
26. Detention record, after perusal, is returned to learned counsel for the
respondents in the open court.
27. Disposed of in the manner as indicated above.
(RAJESH SEKHRI)
JUDGE
Srinagar:
22.10.2026
Adil Ismail
Whether the Judgment is Reportable? Yes
Whether the Judgment is Speaking? Yes
HCP 38/2025 9 | P a g e