Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Deciding Detenu’s Representation Vitiates Preventive Detention under Public Safety Act.

The appellant, a 28-year-old resident of Baramulla, was detained under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (PSA), via an order dated 29.04.2025 issued by respondent No. 2.

The detention was primarily founded on FIR No. 185/2019, registered nearly five years prior, in which the appellant had been granted bail in 2020.

The grounds also cited two minor complaints under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. from 2023 and 2024, and alleged "encrypted communications" with unidentified "Over Ground Workers" to threaten the Shri Amarnath Yatra-2025.

The appellant's representation against the detention, dated 16.05.2025, was rejected after a delay of over three months on 01.09.2025.

A writ court dismissed the initial Habeas Corpus petition on 16.12.2025, leading to this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA).

1. Whether the detention order was based on stale and vague grounds, thereby lacking a "live and proximate link" to the appellant's current activities

2. Whether the inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the appellant’s representation violated constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5)

3. Whether the detaining authority exhibited non-application of mind by failing to provide specific particulars of the alleged illegal activities

The court primarily applied Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 regarding preventive detention.

It relied on Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the detenu's right to make an "effective representation".

The court cited Jahangirkhan Fazalkhan Pathan v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, establishing that vague grounds deprive a detenu of their right to represent.

Saeed Zakir Hussain Malik v. State of Maharashtra, which holds that a lack of proximity between prejudicial activities and the detention order vitiates the detention.

Principle from Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur, requiring the State to consider representations with a "sense of immediacy".

The court found that the detention was based on a stale 2019 FIR, with no specific illegal activity attributed to the appellant for five years post-bail.

It noted that the allegations of "encrypted communications" were bald and vague, as the respondents failed to identify the specific "Over Ground Workers" or terrorists involved.

This lack of detail rendered the grounds insufficient for the appellant to frame an effective response, indicating a non-application of mind by the District Magistrate.

The court observed a delay of over three months (from 16.05.2025 to 01.09.2025) in deciding the appellant's representation.

Following Sarabjeet Singh Mokha, the court reasoned that such an unexplained delay strikes at the heart of procedural guarantees and balances against executive power.

The judgment of the writ court dated 16.12.2025 was set aside, and detention order No. 08/DMB/PSA/2025 dated 29.04.2025 was quashed, with the court ordering the immediate release of the appellant.