J&K High Court quashes preventive detention order, holds vague allegations denied detainee an effective representation

The petitioner challenged detention order No. DMS/PSA/18/2025 dated 7 May 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, placing him under preventive detention to prevent activities allegedly prejudicial to the security of the State.

The grounds alleged that the petitioner had been influenced by radical ideology, associated with terrorists and over-ground workers of the banned outfit TRF, provided logistic support, and harboured terrorists.

The petitioner argued that these allegations were vague, lacked material particulars, and did not establish a proximate link between the alleged activities and the detention order. He also challenged the non-supply of relied-upon material and translations, and alleged delayed consideration of his representation.

The respondents maintained that the detention order, grounds and supporting material had been supplied to and explained to the petitioner, and that all statutory and constitutional safeguards had been observed.

Whether the grounds of detention were vague and lacking in material particulars, thereby preventing the petitioner from making an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution?

Whether the respondents’ failure to produce the proceedings and outcome relating to the petitioner’s alleged binding-down under Sections 126/170 of the BNSS vitiated the preventive detention order?

Whether the detaining authority recorded compelling reasons for resorting to preventive detention despite the earlier preventive proceedings, and whether the beat reports disclosed specific prejudicial activities?

Article 22(5) of the Constitution requires that the grounds of preventive detention be communicated clearly and specifically so that the detenue can make an effective representation.

Vague, indefinite or general allegations undermine the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and invalidate the detention order.

The Court relied on Imran Rashid Rather v. UT of J&K, 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 351, which held that vague grounds violate Articles 14, 21 and 22(5), prevent a specific rebuttal, and render the detention arbitrary.

The Court further relied on Abinash Kumar v. UT of J&K, 2024 SCC OnLine J&K 901, for the principle that failure to place on record the proceedings and outcome of earlier preventive or bond proceedings is fatal to the detention order where those proceedings are relied upon.

Preventive detention after prior proceedings also requires recorded compelling reasons demonstrating why ordinary legal measures were insufficient.

The Court found that the allegations concerning the petitioner’s association with TRF terrorists, provision of logistic support and harbouring of terrorists did not identify the relevant places, persons, dates or periods of the alleged activities.

These omissions made the grounds vague and prevented the petitioner from giving an effective and specific representation, thereby vitiating the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction under Article 22(5).

The Court also noted that although the grounds referred to the petitioner having been bound down under Sections 126/170 of the BNSS on three occasions, the respondents produced neither the underlying proceedings nor their outcome.

The record further failed to disclose any compelling reason for resorting to preventive detention despite those proceedings.

Finally, the beat reports contained only general allegations and attributed no specific overt act to the petitioner; therefore, they could not establish compelling grounds for preventive detention.

The petition was allowed, detention order No. DMS/PSA/18/2025 dated 7 May 2025 was quashed, and the respondents were directed to release the petitioner forthwith, unless he was required in connection with any other case.