SHAHID AMIN GANIE vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (HOME) AND ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 15.04.2026
Pronounced on:08.05.2026
Uploaded on: 08.05.2025
Whether the operative part
or full judgment is
pronounced: Full
HCP No.383/2024
SHAHID AMIN GANIE
...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S)
Through: - Mr. M. A. Makroo, Advocate.
Vs.
UT OF J&K & ANOTHER ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. Ilyas Laway, GA.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner
has challenged detention order bearing No.27/DMA/PSA/
DET/2024 dated 24.10.2024, issued by District Magistrate,
Anantnag, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 8 of the
J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, whereby the detenue, namely,
Shahid Amin Ganai , has been placed under preventive
detention so as to prevent him from indulging in the activities
which are prejudicial to the security of the UT.
2) It has been contended that the detaining authority, while
passing the impugned order, has not followed the procedural
safeguards as provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution
HCP No.383/2024 Page 1 of 7

of India and Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act. It has
been submitted that impugned detention order has been
passed without application of mind as the grounds of detention
are vague, equivocal, obscure, indefinite and ambiguous, on
which no prudent man can make a representation against
such allegations. It has been further contended that whole of
the material has not been provided to the petitioner and that
the representation submitted by the petitioner against the
impugned detention order has not been considered as the
result of consideration has not been conveyed to him. It has
also been contended that the grounds of detention are
verbatim copy of the dossier.
3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have
contended that the activities of the detenue have been found
prejudicial to the security of the State. 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 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 and that the
HCP No.383/2024 Page 2 of 7

order has been issued validly and legally. It has also been
contended that the detention of the detenue has been ordered
strictly in accordance with the provisions of J&K Public Safety
Act. 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 following grounds:

(I) That representation of the petitioner against the impugned
order of detention has not been considered by the
respondents thereby violating his statutory and
constitutional rights.

(II) That the grounds of detention are vague and cryptic, which
prevented him from making an effective representation
against his detention.
6) So far as the first ground of challenge is concerned, a
perusal of the detention record reveals that the representation
of the petitioner dated 20.11.2025 has been rejected by the
Government and an intimation in this regard has been
communicated by the Deputy Secretary to the Government,
Home Department, to the District Magistrate, Anantnag, in
terms of communication No.Home/PB-V/513/2024/7591382
dated 27.01.2025. In the said communication, the
HCP No.383/2024 Page 3 of 7

respondents have admitted receipt of representation of the
petitioner. The representation has been received by the
respondents on 26.11.2024, which is clear from the
communication dated 26.11.2024, vide which the
representation of the petitioner had been forwarded by the
District Magistrate, Anantnag to Principal Secretary to
Government, Home Department, that forms part of the
detention record. The question that arises for determination is
as to whether consideration of representation after a period of
two months from the date of receipt of the same satisfies the
requirement of law.
7) The aforesaid question has been answering by the
Supreme Court 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
HCP No.383/2024 Page 4 of 7

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.”
8) 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 & 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 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 & Kashmir Public Safety
Act.
HCP No.383/2024 Page 5 of 7

9) In the present case, the respondents have received the
representation of the petitioner on 26.11.2024 but the same
has been decided by them on 27.01.2025. there is no
explanation from the side of the respondents with regard to the
delay of more than 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.
10) Next it has been contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the grounds of detention are vague, inasmuch
as there is no mention of the particulars of alleged terrorists,
to whom the petitioner was allegedly providing the logistic
support.
11) On perusal of the detention record produced by learned
counsel for the respondents, the ground projected regarding
vagueness of the averments made in the grounds of detention,
appears to be forceful. In the grounds of detention, there is no
mention of the particulars of the places and the identity of the
terrorists, to whom the petitioner was allegedly providing
logistic support. The particulars of the period when the
detenue is alleged to have provided food, shelter and other
logistic support to the alleged terrorists are also not mentioned
in the grounds of detention. Thus, the grounds, being vague
and lacking in material particulars, the detenue could not have
HCP No.383/2024 Page 6 of 7

made an effective representation against his detention.
Therefore, there has been violation of constitutional
guarantees envisaged under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The detention order, as such, is illegal and unsustainable. In
my aforesaid view, I am fortified by the judgments of the
Supreme Court in the case of Jahangirkhan Fazal Khan
Pathan vs. Police Commissioner, Ahmadabad, (1989) 3 SCC
590, Abdul Razak Nane khan Pathan v. Police
Commissioner, Ahmadabad, AIR 1989 SC 2265, Mohd.
Yousuf Rather vs. State of J&K & Ors, 1979 4 SCC 370 and
Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs. The Commissioner of Police,
Ahmedabad City and Ors. 1989 (1) Crimes 176 (SC).
12) 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.
13) The detention record be returned to learned counsel for
the respondents.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
Srinagar
08.05.2026
“Bhat Altaf-Secy”


Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No

HCP No.383/2024 Page 7 of 7