Vague and unsubstantiated allegations of subversive activities while on bail cannot sustain preventive detention orders.

The petitioner, Shabir Ahmad Rather, was detained under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), 1978, pursuant to detention order No. 30/DMP/PSA/24 dated 04.09.2024 issued by the District Magistrate, Pulwama.

The detention was based on a police dossier alleging the petitioner was a "hard core Over Ground Worker (OGW)" for Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM).

The grounds of detention cited the petitioner’s alleged involvement in FIR No. 76 of 2022 and his purported continued subversive activities after being released on bail by a criminal court.

The petitioner challenged the detention via a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the grounds were a "mirror image" of the police dossier, signifying non-application of mind, and that there was no proximate link between his past actions and the detention.

1. Whether the detention order was passed with due application of mind or was merely a mechanical reproduction of the police dossier.

2. Whether the Detaining Authority failed to establish a proximate and demonstrable factual link between the petitioner's activities and the threat to state security.

3. Whether the detention was invalidated by the failure to provide the petitioner with all translated materials to enable an effective representation.

The court applied the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, which governs preventive detention for activities prejudicial to the security of the State.

It relied on the constitutional mandate under Article 226 for the restoration of personal liberty.

The court applied the principle established in Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India (1981), which requires that grounds of detention must be explained to the detenu in a language they understand to fulfill the constitutional right to make a representation.

The court also emphasized the requirement of "application of mind," prohibiting the Detaining Authority from acting as a "passive recipient" of police dossiers.

The Court observed that the grounds of detention were virtually identical to the police dossier, indicating that the District Magistrate failed to exercise independent judgment and acted in a "mechanical motion".

The Court found the allegations to be of a "vindictive nature" rather than preventive, noting that the petitioner was already on bail in a criminal case and had not breached any bail conditions.

The Judge reasoned that a person cannot be subjected to the "draconian" measures of preventive detention based on the "mere ipse dixit" or "self-entertained opinion" of the police without "hardcore reportable and demonstrable factual content".

The Court determined that the absence of a proximate link between the petitioner’s past conduct and current activities rendered the detention order legally unsustainable.

The Court answered the issues in favour of the petitioner, quashing Detention Order No. 30/DMP/PSA/24 dated 04.09.2024 along with subsequent approval and extension orders.

The Court directed the immediate release of Shabir Ahmad Rather from preventive custody, provided he is not required in any other case.