J&K High Court quashes PSA detention, says father’s past militancy and possession of books cannot justify preventive custody

The petitioner challenged detention order No. 27-DMK/PSA of 2025 dated 13.09.2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Kupwara, under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, placing Shafat Maqbool Wani under preventive detention to prevent activities allegedly prejudicial to the security of the State.

The detention grounds relied principally on his alleged involvement in FIR No. 69/2025 registered at Police Station Handwara under Sections 13, 17 and 18 of the UAP Act and Section 7/25 of the Arms Act, his alleged separatist background, his father’s past affiliation with the militant organisation Al-Barq, invitations to international academic conferences, and possession of literature described as anti-national.

The petitioner contended that he had already been granted bail after the Special Judge, NIA, Jammu rejected the application for extension of remand beyond 155 days.

He alleged non-application of mind, absence of any specific prejudicial activity, vagueness of the grounds, and lack of compelling reasons for preventive detention.

The respondents maintained that the detention order was validly passed after verification and that the relied-upon material had been supplied and explained to the detenue.

Whether the detaining authority applied its mind and recorded the requisite satisfaction that the petitioner’s activities were prejudicial to the security of the State.

Whether the detention order was supported by a live and proximate link between the petitioner’s alleged past conduct and the imperative need for preventive detention.

Whether reliance on the petitioner’s family background, academic activities, possession of literature, and involvement in FIR No. 69/2025 constituted sufficient and legally relevant grounds for preventive detention.

Whether the grounds of detention were specific and sufficiently clear to enable the petitioner to make an effective representation.

The Court applied the principles governing preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, under which detention must be based on the detaining authority’s genuine subjective satisfaction formed through proper application of mind to relevant material.

Preventive detention cannot be founded on vague, irrelevant, stale, speculative, or extraneous considerations; there must be a rational and live connection between the alleged past conduct and the necessity for detention, and the grounds must be sufficiently precise to permit an effective representation.

The Court relied on Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, (2023) 9 SCC 587, particularly paragraph 28, which requires examination of the existence of requisite satisfaction, consideration of all relevant circumstances, exercise of power for the statutory purpose, rational probative value of the material, a live and proximate link between past conduct and detention, and precise and relevant grounds.

The Court found that, although the respondents were aware that the petitioner had been granted bail, the detention record did not demonstrate any meaningful effort by the detaining authority to identify a concrete prejudicial activity warranting preventive detention.

The assertion that separatist ideology had been inculcated in the petitioner since childhood merely because his father had been a former militant who surrendered in 1990 was held to be delusory and insufficient to establish the necessary subjective satisfaction.

The Court further observed that no specific subversive activity, apart from the petitioner’s alleged involvement in FIR No. 69/2025, had been attributed to him.

Possession of books with allegedly dispiriting or anti-national titles did not, by itself, justify preventive detention, particularly when the petitioner was an academic scholar expected to possess varied literary material; the Court also noted that the books had been wrongly attributed to him as author.

Consequently, the grounds lacked rational probative value and failed to establish the requisite nexus between the material relied upon and the preventive purpose of the detention.

The petition was allowed, detention order No. 27-DMK/PSA of 2025 dated 13.09.2025 was quashed, and the detenue was directed to be released from preventive custody forthwith, subject to his not being required in any other case.

The detention record was ordered to be returned to the respondents’ counsel.