Man Detained Under PSA To Be Released Unless Required In Another Case: J&K HC Quashes Order Over Copied Grounds And Unexplained Two-Month Representation Delay

The petitioner challenged detention order No. 23/DMB/PSA/2025, dated 25 June 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Baramulla, under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.

He argued, among other things, that the grounds of detention substantially reproduced the police dossier and that his wife’s representation had not been considered promptly.

The respondents stated that the detention was based on alleged activities connected to FIRs from 2008 and 2018, and that the representation was considered and rejected.

The Court examined the grounds and dossier, and the detention record, which showed that the representation dated 8 July 2025 was rejected on 4 September 2025.

Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, empowers preventive detention, but the detaining authority must independently apply its mind when formulating the grounds of detention; mechanical reproduction of the police dossier is indicative of non-application of mind.

The Court relied on Jai Singh and Ors. v. State of J&K, AIR 1985 SC 764, on this requirement.

It also applied the procedural safeguard under Section 13 of the Act, as identified in the judgment, requiring expeditious consideration of a representation against detention.

Relying on Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur and Others, (2021) 20 SCC 98, the Court held that unexplained delay in deciding a representation infringes the detenu’s valuable procedural right.

On comparing the grounds of detention with the police dossier, the Court found no material or substantial difference beyond replacing “subject” with “you.”

It concluded that the detaining authority had reproduced the dossier rather than independently applying its mind, making the detention order unsustainable.

The record further showed that the representation was submitted on 8 July 2025 and rejected on 4 September 2025; the respondents gave no explanation for the delay of nearly two months.

Applying the principle in Sarabjeet Singh Mokha, the Court held that this unexplained delay infringed the petitioner’s procedural right and independently rendered the detention illegal.

It directed the respondents to release the petitioner from preventive custody forthwith, unless he was required in connection with another case.