Preventive detention quashed after authorities delayed representation for over two months and failed to communicate its rejection

The petitioner challenged detention order No. PSA 03 of 2026 dated 6 February 2026, issued by the District Magistrate, Jammu, under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, on the ground that his detention was necessary to prevent acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

The detention was based on allegations arising from 14 FIRs and the petitioner’s alleged involvement in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and liquor.

The petitioner had previously been detained under the PITNDPS Act in 2023 and was released pursuant to a Division Bench judgment dated 19 September 2024.

The petitioner’s wife submitted a representation against the detention, which was received by the District Magistrate on 16 March 2026. The District Magistrate forwarded it to the Government only on 23 April 2026; the Home Department thereafter sought a report from the CID, received it on 14 May 2026, and rejected the representation on 19 May 2026.

The detention record did not contain any acknowledgment or receipt showing that the rejection decision had been communicated to the petitioner.

Whether the unexplained delay of more than two months in considering the petitioner’s representation violated his constitutional and statutory safeguards under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act.

Whether failure to communicate the decision rejecting the representation to the detenue violated the procedural safeguards governing preventive detention.

Article 22(5) of the Constitution requires that a detenue be furnished the grounds of detention and afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the detention.

Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act similarly requires communication of the grounds of detention within the prescribed period and confers a corresponding right to make an expeditious representation.

The representation must be considered by the competent authority with a sense of urgency; referral to or consideration by the Advisory Board does not justify delaying independent consideration by the Government.

The Court relied on Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur, (2021) 20 SCC 98, particularly paragraph 47, holding that unexplained delay in deciding a representation, as well as failure to communicate its rejection in a timely manner, infringes the detenue’s procedural rights and may invalidate the detention.

The Court found that the representation was retained by the District Magistrate from 16 March to 23 April 2026—more than five weeks—without any explanation for the delay in forwarding it to the Government.

The representation was ultimately rejected only on 19 May 2026, more than two months after its receipt.

Applying the principle in Sarabjeet Singh Mokha, the Court held that such unexplained delay defeated the requirement of expeditious consideration under Article 22(5) and Section 13 of the Public Safety Act.

Independently, the record contained no proof that the rejection decision had actually been communicated to the petitioner; the communication relied upon by the respondents was merely an inter-departmental communication between the Home Department and the District Magistrate.

This further violated the petitioner’s procedural safeguards.

The petition was accordingly allowed, detention order No. PSA 03 of 2026 dated 6 February 2026 was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be released forthwith, subject to his not being required in any other case.