Fresh prejudicial activities after release justify preventive detention despite quashing of an earlier detention order.

The petitioner challenged Detention Order No. 04/DMP/PSA/25 dated 30 April 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Pulwama under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, placing him under preventive detention to prevent activities prejudicial to the security of the State.

He alleged that the detaining authority had failed to supply the complete material relied upon, that the grounds of detention were vague and stale, and that his representation had not been considered.

The respondents maintained that the detention order was based on proper application of mind, that all relied-upon material had been supplied and explained to the petitioner, and that the statutory and constitutional safeguards had been complied with.

The petitioner had previously been detained under an order dated 12 April 2022; that detention was subsequently quashed by the High Court in LPA No. 276/2022 by judgment dated 26 March 2024.

The impugned grounds alleged that, after his release, he again engaged in activities as an over-ground worker, including providing food, shelter, clothing, transport and vital information to terrorists. Complaints under Sections 126 and 170 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were allegedly filed against him on 16 August 2024, 14 January 2025 and 27 April 2025.

The detention record showed that the petitioner had been supplied 13 leaves, including the detention warrant, notice of detention, grounds of detention, dossier, complaints, surety bonds, FIR and beat report.

His representation dated 22 May 2025 was rejected by the District Magistrate on the same date, and the decision was communicated to him.

Whether the impugned detention order was vitiated because, after the petitioner’s earlier detention was quashed, the grounds did not disclose any fresh, specific or proximate activities justifying his preventive detention.

Whether the petitioner was denied an effective opportunity to make a representation because the complete material relied upon for passing the detention order was not supplied to him.

Whether the respondents failed to consider and communicate the decision on the petitioner’s representation against detention.

The Court applied the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act governing preventive detention, together with the constitutional and statutory safeguards requiring that a detenue be informed of the grounds of detention and supplied the material relied upon so as to enable an effective representation.

Preventive detention is valid where the detaining authority, on the basis of sufficient and relevant material, records subjective satisfaction that detention is necessary to prevent activities prejudicial to the security of the State.

The Court further applied the requirement that a representation against detention must be considered expeditiously and that the decision must be communicated to the detenue.

The Court held that the quashing of the petitioner’s earlier detention did not preclude a subsequent detention order where fresh material disclosed continuing prejudicial activities.

The grounds of detention referred to three complaints filed after his release and specified their dates—16 August 2024, 14 January 2025 and 27 April 2025—which, according to the supplied complaints, reflected inputs regarding activities threatening the security of the State.

The Court therefore found sufficient material for the detaining authority to form the requisite subjective satisfaction and rejected the contention that the allegations were vague, stale or unsupported by a proximate nexus.

On the supply of documents, the Court examined the detention record and found that the petitioner had received the detention warrant, notice, grounds, dossier, complaints, surety bonds, FIR and beat report, comprising 13 leaves in total.

It consequently held that the complete material forming the basis of detention had been supplied.

Finally, because the representation dated 22 May 2025 was decided on the same day and the decision was acknowledged by the petitioner, the Court found no breach of the requirement for prompt consideration and communication.

It held that the impugned detention order was supported by fresh and specific material, that the relied-upon documents had been supplied, and that the petitioner’s representation had been duly considered and communicated.

Finding no ground to interfere with the detention order, the Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition for lack of merit and directed that the detention record be returned to counsel for the respondents.