Preventive detention based on stale, three-decade-old allegations lacks the requisite live and proximate link for validity.

The petitioner challenged the detention order No. DMS/PSA/28/2025 dated 02.06.2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.

The detention was based on allegations that the petitioner crossed into Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) for militant training in 1989 (while a juvenile), was arrested in 1991, and released in 1992.

The respondents contended the petitioner remained an active conduit for banned outfits like ‘TRF’ and ‘LeT’ and had been bound down on five occasions to prevent anti-national activities.

However, no fresh FIRs or specific criminal acts were recorded between 1992 and 2025.

1. Whether a detention order can be sustained based on "stale" and remote incidents occurring over three decades prior to the order

2. Whether the non-supply of relied-upon material in a vernacular language understood by the detenue violates constitutional safeguards

3. Whether the failure to specify recent prejudicial activities renders the grounds of detention "vague" and "indefinite"

Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, concerning preventive detention for the security of the State

Article 22(5), which guarantees the right to make an effective representation against detention

Principle from Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011), establishing that preventive detention must not be based on mere suspicion or ipse dixit

Judicial doctrine of "live and proximate link," which requires a temporal connection between the past conduct and the necessity of current detention

The Court reasoned that preventive detention is a precautionary measure, not a punitive one, and requires a "live and proximate link" between the alleged activities and the detention order.

It found that the foundational allegations dated back to 1989–1992, creating a 33-year gap during which no specific criminal act or FIR was attributed to the petitioner.

The Court observed that the grounds were "vague" and "bald assertions" lacking particulars like dates, places, or names, which prevented the petitioner from making a meaningful representation.

Additionally, the respondents failed to prove that the detention record was translated into a language the petitioner understood, which is a mandatory procedural safeguard under Article 22(5).

The Court also noted the detaining authority failed to consider the petitioner’s juvenile status during the initial 1989 incidents.

The Court quashed Detention Order No. DMS/PSA/28/2025 and directed the immediate release of the petitioner from custody, provided he is not required in any other case.