Five-month unexplained delay in deciding detainee’s representation leads to quashing of preventive detention order

The District Magistrate, Udhampur, ordered Abdul Qayoom’s preventive detention under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, on 24 December 2024, relying on a police dossier.

The grounds referred to four FIRs registered in 1997–1998, which the appellant said had resulted in acquittals, as well as more recent material, including a Daily Diary Report dated 3 November 2024 and proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS.

The appellant’s representation was submitted on 24 January 2025, received by the respondents on 28 January 2025, and rejected by the District Magistrate on 19 June 2025; the record included an official communication of 25 April 2025 seeking its status.

The Single Judge dismissed the habeas corpus petition on 9 October 2025, and the appellant appealed.

Whether the appellant’s representation was considered with the promptitude required by Article 22(5) of the Constitution

Whether the material before the Detaining Authority established a live and proximate link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the necessity for detention on 24 December 2024

Article 22(5) of the Constitution requires a representation by a preventive detainee to be considered and its outcome communicated expeditiously; an unexplained delay may render continued detention unconstitutional (Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1019; Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh v. District Magistrate, Ahmedabad, (1996) 3 SCC 194; Rajammal v. State of T.N., AIR 1999 SC 684).

Preventive detention under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act is not punitive, but the relied-upon conduct must bear a live and proximate connection to the necessity for detention; where there is substantial delay, the court must examine whether the delay is explained and whether the causal connection has been broken (T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala, (1989) 4 SCC 741; Rajinder Arora v. Union of India, (2006) 4 SCC 796).

Judicial review does not permit the court to substitute its subjective satisfaction for that of the Detaining Authority, but does permit scrutiny of the relevance and nexus of the material and compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards.

The representation remained pending from its receipt on 28 January until its rejection on 19 June 2025, nearly five months, and the respondents provided no satisfactory explanation; the communication seeking its status in April further showed that it had not then been dealt with.

As to the detention grounds, the four FIRs dated 1997–1998 were separated from the detention order by about 26 years, and the respondents did not establish that proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS had progressed or explain why those measures were inadequate.

Although the court considered the 3 November 2024 DDR and other recent material, it found that, viewed with the entire record, they did not satisfactorily establish the necessary continuing and proximate connection between the alleged conduct and detention in December 2024.

The court therefore found both an Article 22(5) breach and an insufficient live nexus, without substituting its own subjective satisfaction for that of the Detaining Authority.

The respondents were directed to release the appellant forthwith, unless he was required in connection with another case.