01Facts
The petitioner, Fariz Gulzar, was detained under Detention Order No. 11/DMP/PSA/25 dated 30.04.2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Pulwama, under the J&K Public Safety Act (PSA), 1978
p. 1The detention was based on FIR No. 293/2023 involving alleged anti-national activities and working as an Over Ground Worker (OGW) for terrorists
pp. 2-3The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds that he was a juvenile (16 years old) at the time of the alleged activities in 2023 and the date of the FIR
p. 2, 4School records indicated his date of birth as 11.04.2007, which the respondents did not rebut
p. 3He had previously been lodged in a Juvenile Home for fifteen months and released on bail on 02.01.2025 before the impugned detention order was issued
p. 3, 502Issues
i.1. Whether a person can be detained under the Public Safety Act based on activities allegedly committed while they were a juvenile
p. 4 / para. 10ii.2. Whether the failure of the detaining authority to consider the detenue's juvenility at the time of the alleged occurrence constitutes non-application of mind
p. 6 / para. 11iii.3. Whether vague and general allegations in the grounds of detention satisfy the requirements for preventive detention
p. 7 / para. 1503Law Applied
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which excludes punitive or preventive detention mechanisms meant for adults from being applied to children
p. 4Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, establishing that matriculation certificates are conclusive evidence of age
p. 4Union of India v. Ramesh Bishnoi, which holds that juvenile records should be obliterated to avoid future stigma
p. 5Tahir Riyaz Dar v. UT of J&K, asserting that acts committed as a juvenile cannot form the basis for subsequent preventive detention
p. 5Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, stating preventive detention is illegal if ordinary law is sufficient
p. 6Jahangir Khan Fazal Khan Pathan v. Police Commissioner, regarding the invalidity of detention based on vague grounds
pp. 7-8Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Section 3
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302
Arms Act, 1959 Section 25
04Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the Detaining Authority acted mechanically by relying on a police dossier that failed to mention the petitioner’s juvenile status during the 2023 FIR
p. 6Since the petitioner was 16 years old during the alleged acts, he was governed by the Juvenile Justice Act, and those acts lost their "determinative value" for future preventive action
p. 5 · ¶ 10The Court found that the detention order manifested a total non-application of mind because the authority ignored a "vital and relevant factor"—the detenue’s juvenility
p. 6Additionally, the allegations of providing "logistic support" and "motivating youth" were deemed vague and general, lacking specific dates or particulars, thereby preventing the petitioner from making an effective representation
pp. 7-8Lastly, the Court noted that the ordinary law (Juvenile Justice framework) was sufficient to handle the situation, making the bypass to PSA unnecessary and disproportionate
p. 705Holding
The Court held that the detention order was legally unsustainable due to non-application of mind and reliance on activities committed during juvenility
p. 6, 9It answered that a juvenile cannot be equated with an adult offender for the purpose of preventive detention
p. 4Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, quashed Detention Order No. 11/DMP/PSA/25, and directed the immediate release of Fariz Gulzar from custody
p. 9Original Court PDF
FARIZ GULZARvsUNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ANR. (HOME)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
