Activities committed during juvenility cannot form the legal basis for a subsequent preventive detention order.

The petitioner, an 18-year-old, challenged the detention order No. 10/DMP/PSA/25 dated 30.04.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Pulwama, under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act (PSA), 1978

The detention was based on the petitioner's alleged involvement in FIR No. 293/2023 (under Section 302 IPC and Arms Act) related to anti-national activities and his role as an Over Ground Worker (OGW) for terrorists

The petitioner presented a school certificate establishing his date of birth as 07.04.2007, proving he was approximately 16 years old (a juvenile) at the time of the alleged offenses in 2023

Despite his prior release from a Juvenile Home on bail in January 2025, the detaining authority passed the impugned order citing security of the State

The court primarily applied Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, alongside the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

It relied on Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, which establishes that matriculation certificates are conclusive proof of age for juveniles

It further applied the principle from Union of India v. Ramesh Bishnoi and the Division Bench ruling in Tahir Riyaz Dar v. UT of J&K, asserting that acts committed during juvenility cannot form the basis for future preventive detention as they lose "determinative value" and must be obliterated to avoid stigma

Finally, it referenced Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu regarding the necessity of ordinary law over preventive detention and Jahangir Khan Fazal Khan Pathan v. Police Commissioner regarding the invalidity of detention based on vague grounds

The court reasoned that since the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the 2023 activities mentioned in the grounds of detention, those acts could not legally sustain a preventive detention order.

The court found that the detaining authority had mechanically reproduced the police dossier without considering the petitioner's age or the legal protections afforded by the Juvenile Justice Act, constituting a "non-application of mind"

Furthermore, the court noted that the allegations of being an OGW and motivating youth were "vague and general statements" lacking specific particulars, which deprived the detenue of his constitutional right to make an effective representation

The court emphasized that preventive detention is an exception to personal liberty and should only be used when ordinary law is insufficient; in this case, the juvenile justice framework was the appropriate mechanism

The court quashed Detention Order No. 10/DMP/PSA/25 and directed the immediate release of Danish Farooq @ Raj Soub, provided he is not required in any other cases

The court concluded that the order failed the tests of reasonableness, legality, and proportionality due to the reliance on inadmissible material and vague grounds