Vague detention grounds and unexplained delay in deciding a representation invalidate preventive detention.

The petitioner challenged detention order No. 16/DMS/PSA of 2025, dated 23 December 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Shopian.

The grounds alleged, among other things, that he had attempted to contact local youth and maintained links with persons or associations said to have extremist leanings.

The petitioner argued that these allegations were vague and that his representation had been considered belatedly.

The respondents stated that the detention materials had been served on him and that his representation, received on 14 January 2026, was rejected on 2 March 2026.

Whether the grounds of detention were so vague and lacking in particulars that the petitioner could not make an effective representation, thereby violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

Whether the unexplained delay of more than one and a half months in deciding the petitioner’s representation rendered the detention unlawful.

Article 22(5) of the Constitution requires that a detenu be given sufficient particulars to enable an effective representation; detention on vague grounds violates that constitutional guarantee.

The Court relied on Jahangirkhan Fazalkhan Pathan v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, (1989) 3 SCC 590, for the rule that vague grounds deprive a detenu of the right to make an effective representation.

Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act requires communication of the grounds within the prescribed period and affords the detenu the earliest opportunity to make a representation; that representation must be considered expeditiously.

Relying on Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur, (2021) 20 SCC 98, the Court held that unexplained delay in deciding a representation infringes the detenu’s procedural rights.

The detention grounds alleged that the petitioner sought to establish contact with local youth and associated with persons or organisations with extremist leanings, but gave no dates, identified no youth, and named no persons or associations.

The Court held that these omissions made the allegations vague and prevented an effective representation, violating Article 22(5).

The respondents also acknowledged that the representation was received on 14 January 2026 but decided only on 2 March 2026.

As they offered no explanation for the delay, the Court found that the failure to decide the representation within a reasonable and expeditious time infringed the petitioner’s rights under Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act.

It directed the respondents to release the petitioner from preventive custody forthwith, unless he was required in connection with another case, and directed that the detention record be returned to the respondents’ counsel.