ZAMEER AHMAD SHAH vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME)

Court
Jammu and Kashmir High Court

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
……
LPA No.211/2025
In HCP No.242/2024

Reserved on: 15.04.2026
Pronounced on: 23.04.2026
Uploaded on: 23.04.2026

Whether the operative part or
full judgment is pronounced: Full


Zameer Ahmad Shah
…….Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Wajid Haseeb, Advocate

Versus

Union Territory of J&K and others
……Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA

CORAM :
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

PER OSWAL-J
1. The appellant came to be detained pursuant to order of detention
bearing No.22/DMA/PSA/DET/2024 dated 20.05.2024, passed by the
District Magistrate, Anantnag (respondent No. 2) in exercise of
powers under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978
(hereinafter referred to as “ the Act ”). The appellant challenged the
said order of detention by way of HCP No.242/2024, which, however,
came to be dismissed by the learned Writ Court vide judgment dated
22.08.2025 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment”) .
Page 1
LPA No.211/2025

2. Being aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
dated 22.08.2025, the appellant has assailed the same on the following
grounds:
(i) That the learned writ court has failed to consider and
properly appreciate the grounds urged by the appellant in
the writ petition, thereby rendering the impugned judgment
unsustainable in law.
(ii) That the learned Writ Court has failed to properly
appreciate the contention of the appellant that the order of
detention has been passed by respondent No.2 without due
application of mind inasmuch as the grounds of detention
are a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier, thereby
vitiating the order of detention.
(iii) That the learned writ Court has failed to appreciate that the
allegations set out in the grounds of detention had no
nexus with the appellant and were fabricated by the police
with the sole object of illegally detaining the appellant,
thereby vitiating the impugned order of detention.
(iv) That it was specifically submitted before the learned Writ
Court that the appellant was not furnished with the relevant
material forming the basis of the subjective satisfaction
recorded by the detaining authority, as reflected in the
order of detention and the grounds of detention; however,
the learned writ Court has failed to properly appreciate the
said contention, thereby vitiating the impugned judgment.
(v) That the learned Writ Court has failed to appreciate that
the appellant had submitted a representation against the
order of detention, which was not considered and disposed
of by the respondents in accordance with law and within a
reasonable time, thereby violating the constitutional
safeguards available to the appellant.
Page 2
LPA No.211/2025

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had
filed a representation against the order of detention to Government,
but the same was not considered by the competent authority in
accordance with law. It is further submitted that the appellant had
earlier been proceeded against under Section 107 Cr.P.C., and upon
his release, no fresh illegal activity was attributed to him so as to
warrant his preventive detention under the Act.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the
learned Writ Court has rightly considered the contentions of the
appellant and after considering the same only, the writ petition
preferred by the appellant was dismissed. He has further argued that
the procedural safeguards under the Constitution and the Act were
duly followed while issuing and executing the order of detention.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
record.
6. The record reveals that, pursuant to the dossier prepared by
respondent No.3, a proposal was submitted to respondent No.2 for
detaining the appellant under the Act on the ground that his activities
were prejudicial to the security of the State/UT of J&K. Acting upon
the said dossier, respondent No.2 issued the order of detention dated
20.05.2024.
7. It is contended by the appellant that he was implicated in FIR
No.49/2024 and was released on personal bond and thereafter the
appellant has not involved himself in any illegal activity and further
that the representations submitted by the appellant to respondent Nos.
1 & 2 were not considered by the respondents.

Page 3
LPA No.211/2025

8. We have examined the detention record which reveals that the
representation dated 30.05.2024 submitted by the father of the
appellant on 09.06.2024 was rejected vide letter No. Home/PB-
V/395/2024/7483196 dated 02.07.2024, addressed by Deputy
Secretary to Government, Home Department, to the District
Magistrate, Anantnag, but we have not come across any document
that the appellant or his father was informed about the decision taken
upon the said representation.
9. The respondents were under obligation not only to decide the
representation expeditiously but also to communicate the detenue
about the decision of the said representation but in the present case,
the respondents have failed to communicate the detenue the decision
of the said representation. As such, detention of the appellant gets
vitiated.
10. It would be appropriate to take note of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs. District
Magistrate, Jabalpur and others , (2021) 20 SCC 98, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the legal effect of delay in
deciding a detenu’s representation, as well as the failure to
communicate the decision to the detenu, on the validity of the order of
detention. The governing principle has been succinctly laid down in
paragraph 47 of the said judgment. The relevant extract reads 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
Page 4
LPA No.211/2025

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.”
Emphasis added

11. We have examined the judgment rendered by the learned Writ Court
and we find that the pivotal issue noticed by us hereinabove has
escaped the consideration of the learned Writ Court.
12. In light of the above, we are of the considered view that the judgment
impugned in this appeal is not sustainable in the eyes of law and
accordingly, the same is set aside. Resultantly, the order of detention
bearing No.22/DMA/PSA/DET/2024 dated 20.05.2024, passed by the
District Magistrate, Anantnag under Section 8 of the Jammu and
Kashmir Public Safety Act , 1978 is quashed . The appellant shall be
released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.
13. The record shall be returned to the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
14. Disposed of as above along with connected CM(s), if any.



(Rajnesh Oswal) (Arun Palli)
Judge Chief Justice
JAMMU
23.04.2026
Ajaz Ahmad, Secy
Whether order is reportable ? Yes/ No.
KARAM CHAND
2026.03.13 13:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 5
LPA No.211/2025