66-year-old’s PSA detention quashed after J&K High Court finds police dossier branded him a terror operative without citing a criminal case

The District Magistrate, Kathua, ordered Romelu Ram’s preventive detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, on 4 April 2026, on a dossier alleging links with banned terrorist organisations, provision of logistical support to militants, and activities prejudicial to State security.

The dossier also referred to two proceedings under Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and two daily diary reports; it did not identify a criminal case against Ram.

The Government approved the detention, and it was confirmed for six months.

Ram challenged the detention under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the detention order was vitiated by non-application of mind, given the unsupported allegations in the dossier and the District Magistrate’s treatment of the material.

Whether the District Magistrate’s reliance on provisions concerning maintenance of public order as grounds for detention prejudicial to State security rendered the detention legally invalid.

Whether the detention and the consequential approval and confirmation orders should be quashed.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to review and quash unlawful preventive detention.

Under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, the detention authority must apply its mind to the material and the statutory ground invoked; the Court treated Section 8(3)(b) as defining conduct prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, not conduct prejudicial to the security of the State.

The judgment also referred to Sections 8(4), 15 and 16 of the Act concerning Government approval, reference to the Advisory Board, and the Board’s opinion.

The Court found the dossier’s allegations of terrorist links and logistical support unsupported by identified incidents or criminal cases; it also noted that the dossier did not establish that the proceedings under Section 129 BNSS had resulted in a final order, while the cited diary entries were treated as hearsay inputs.

The District Magistrate nevertheless adopted the dossier’s assertions and reproduced Section 8(3)(b), which the Court identified as addressing public order, while purporting to assess conduct prejudicial to State security.

The Court held that this statutory mischaracterisation, together with the defects in the supporting material, demonstrated non-application of mind and vitiated the detention; it also found the Advisory Board’s opinion to have overlooked the anomaly.

It quashed detention order No. PSA/178 dated 4 April 2026, together with the Government’s approval, confirmation and any extension orders, and directed the Superintendent of District Jail, Jammu, to release Ram forthwith.