Facts
The appellant was detained under Order No. 22/DMA/PSA/DET/2024 dated 20.05.2024, issued by the District Magistrate, Anantnag, under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, alleging activities prejudicial to state security
Source reference: p. 1, 3The appellant challenged this via a writ petition (HCP No. 242/2024), which was dismissed by the Writ Court on 22.08.2025
Source reference: p. 1The appellant contended that the detention grounds were a verbatim copy of the police dossier, relevant material was not furnished, and a representation filed by his father on 09.06.2024 was not properly processed
Source reference: p. 2, 4While the Home Department rejected the representation on 02.07.2024, there was no record that this decision was communicated to the detenu
Source reference: p. 4Issues
1. Whether the failure of the respondents to communicate the rejection of the representation to the detenu vitiates the detention order
Source reference: p. 4, para 92. Whether the Writ Court erred in failing to consider the procedural safeguard regarding the communication of the representation's outcome
Source reference: p. 5, para 11Law Applied
The court applied Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, concerning the powers and procedures for preventive detention
Source reference: p. 1The court relied heavily on the constitutional and procedural safeguards enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur and others (2021)
Source reference: p. 4This precedent establishes that the state must not only decide a detenu's representation expeditiously but must also communicate the decision to the detenu; failure to do so strikes at the heart of procedural rights and fundamental guarantees
Source reference: p. 4-5, para 10Reasoning
The Court found that while the representation dated 30.05.2024 was rejected by the Home Department on 02.07.2024, the administrative record was devoid of any evidence that the appellant or his father were informed of this decision
Source reference: p. 4, para 8Applying the principle from Sarabjeet Singh Mokha, the Court reasoned that the right to make a representation is illusory if the outcome is not communicated, as it violates the procedural safeguards meant to balance the executive's wide powers of subjective satisfaction
Source reference: p. 4-5The Court noted that the Writ Court had overlooked this "pivotal issue," rendering the prior dismissal of the writ petition unsustainable
Source reference: p. 5, para 11Holding
The Court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the non-communication of the rejection of the representation violates constitutional safeguards and vitiates the detention
The Division Bench set aside the Writ Court’s judgment dated 22.08.2025 and quashed the detention order No. 22/DMA/PSA/DET/2024. The Court ordered the appellant to be released forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case
Source reference: p. 5, para 12Original Court PDF
ZAMEER AHMAD SHAHvsUNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in