Facts
The petitioner challenged detention order No. PSA 09 of 2025 dated 04.06.2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Jammu, under the J&K Public Safety Act to prevent activities prejudicial to public order
Source reference: p.1The petitioner had been previously involved in several FIRs but had been granted bail in all of them
Source reference: p.2On 16.07.2025, the petitioner submitted a representation against his detention, which was received by the respondents on 18.07.2025
Source reference: p.3The Government rejected the representation on 29.08.2025, resulting in an unexplained delay of approximately one and a half months
Source reference: p.4Additionally, the detaining authority failed to inform the petitioner of the specific time limit within which he could make a representation to the Magistrate before the order's confirmation
Source reference: p.5Issues
1. Whether the unexplained delay of one and a half months in disposing of the petitioner’s representation violates his constitutional and statutory rights.
Source reference: p.4 / para. 082. Whether the failure of the detaining authority to inform the petitioner of the time limit for making a representation to the detaining authority vitiates the detention order.
Source reference: p.5 / para. 17Law Applied
The court primarily applied Section 13 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, which mandates that the detaining authority communicate the grounds of detention within ten days and afford the earliest opportunity for representation
Source reference: p.5It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in *Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs. District Magistrate, Jabalpur*, which held that failure to decide a representation within a reasonable time strikes at the valuable rights of the detainee
Source reference: p.4Furthermore, it applied the principle from *Tanveer Ahmed @ Jimmy vs. UT of J&K & Ors.*, establishing that the detaining authority must inform the detainee of the timeframe to exercise the right of representation before the order is confirmed by the Government
Source reference: p.6Reasoning
The court found that the respondents provided no explanation in the counter-affidavit or the detention record for the 45-day delay in processing the petitioner's representation from July to August 2025
Source reference: p.4Such slackness was deemed an infringement of the fundamental right to an expeditious review of preventive custody
Source reference: p.5Regarding the second issue, the court observed that the notice served on 11.06.2025 omitted the time limit for making a representation to the District Magistrate
Source reference: p.5By the time the petitioner submitted his representation on 16.07.2025, the detention had already been confirmed by the Government on 02.07.2025, rendering the District Magistrate *functus officio* and powerless to consider it
Source reference: p.6This omission prejudiced the petitioner by causing the loss of a valuable right to seek recourse at the first instance
Source reference: p.6Holding
The court answered both issues in the affirmative, holding that the unexplained delay and the failure to notify the petitioner of the representation time limit rendered the detention unsustainable in law
The court quashed detention order No. PSA 09 of 2025 and directed the immediate release of the petitioner from preventive custody, provided he is not required in any other case
Source reference: p.6Original Court PDF
Aniket Mottan @ Bablu v. UT of J&K & Ors. [HCP No. 105/2025 (2026:JKLHC-JMU:606)]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in