J&K HC Quashes 23-Year-Old’s PSA Detention, Citing No Evidence in Sole FIR and 2½-Month Delay in Deciding His Representation

The petitioner was detained under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (PSA), by order dated 31 December 2024.

The order relied on a police dossier linking him to an alleged terror-support network and to FIR No. 219/2022 under Sections 120-B and 130 IPC and Sections 18 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

The dossier stated that investigators were still collecting evidence and that the petitioner had been bound down and released on a surety bond; it did not set out further details of the security proceedings or allege that any bond conditions had been breached.

The petitioner challenged the detention as founded on vague and unsupported allegations and as procedurally unlawful.

He also relied on delay in deciding his representation: it was sent by the Home Department to the District Magistrate on 3 February 2025 and disposed of on 22 April 2025.

1. Whether the detention order was sustainable where the allegations against the petitioner rested on an unsubstantiated apprehension and did not establish a live and proximate link between the alleged activity and the need for detention.

2. Whether the detaining authority adequately explained why ordinary security proceedings under the BNSS were insufficient to prevent the alleged prejudicial activities.

3. Whether the delay in deciding the petitioner’s representation violated the safeguards governing preventive detention.

Article 21 protects life and personal liberty, while Article 22(5) requires that a detenue be afforded an effective opportunity to make a representation against preventive detention.

Under the PSA, including Sections 8(1) and 13 as discussed by the Court, the grounds of detention must support the detention and the representation must be considered expeditiously.

Preventive detention is an executive measure distinct from security proceedings under the BNSS, but where such proceedings are relied upon, the authority must demonstrate why they are insufficient; the Court referred to Sections 129 and 135(3) BNSS in considering the proceedings described in the dossier.

Relying on Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur, (2021) 20 SCC 98, the Court reiterated that delay in considering a representation can deprive a detenue of a valuable procedural right and cannot be justified merely by a reference to the Advisory Board.

The Court found that the detention rested on a solitary FIR and an allegation of association with other over-ground workers, while the respondents’ own case was that evidence against the petitioner was still being collected and that he would be formally arrested if such evidence emerged.

The Court therefore considered the detention to be based on apprehension rather than evidence against the petitioner.

It further noted that the dossier and grounds did not explain the status or outcome of the security proceedings, whether the petitioner had been required to execute a bond, or whether he had breached any bond conditions; the authorities had not shown why those proceedings were inadequate.

Finally, the representation remained undecided for approximately two and a half months.

Applying the principle in Sarabjeet Singh Mokha, the Court held that this unexplained delay infringed the detenue’s procedural right to expeditious consideration.

It directed the petitioner’s immediate release, unless he was required to be detained in connection with another case.