Amarnath Yatra: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ends preventive custody of man with ‘extremist links’

Justice Sanjay Dhar pronounced the order on May 15.

“It appears that the petitioner has been subjected to preventive detention because of the Shri Amarnathji Yatra that was to take place in the year 2025. Since the Yatra period is long over, the reason for keeping the petitioner in preventive detention has vanished by now, thereby rendering the need for the petitioner’s preventive detention unnecessary,” the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said on May 15.

The order added that the grounds of detention must not be vague, indefinite or general. Vague allegations make it impossible for the detenu to understand the reasons and effectively challenge the detention.

Detention ahead of Amarnath Yatra

The petitioner had challenged the detention order issued by the Ganderbal district magistrate on April 30, 2025. The executive had placed him under preventive detention to stop him from engaging in activities deemed prejudicial to the security of the state during the Amarnath Yatra, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court noted.

The Amarnath Yatra is an annual Hindu pilgrimage to the sacred Amarnath cave located in the Himalayas in Jammu and Kashmir. Last year, the yatra was held from July 3 to August 9.

‘Allegations fabricated’

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate G N Shaheen contended before the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court that the allegations/the grounds of detention are vague and mere assertions, based on which no prudent man can make an effective representation.
• It was contended that the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and they were fabricated by the police to justify their illegal detention.
• It has been contended that procedural safeguards have not been complied with, since the whole of the material which formed the basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner, and that the detenue was not detained in accordance with Section 8 of the Public Safety Act.
• Representing the state, general advocate Waseem Gull contended that the detention order is based on a reasonable predilection of future behaviour and the same has been passed after considering the past conduct of the detainee.
• It has been contended that the activities of the detainee are highly prejudicial to the security of the state. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention, along with the material relied upon by the detaining authority, were handed over to the detenue and the same were read over and explained to him.

Court’s findings

• While seeking to quash the order, the petitioner’s counsel projected various grounds but mainly underlined that the grounds of detention are vague, cryptic and lacking in material particulars, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court noted.
• In the grounds of detention, there is no mention of the particulars of the places and the identity of the alleged terrorists, extremist and separatist elements, with whom the petitioner has allegedly demonstrated consistent ideological alignment.
• The particulars of the period when the detainee is alleged to have met these terrorists and separatist elements are also not mentioned.
• The grounds, being vague and lacking in material particulars, the detainee could not have made an effective representation against his detention.
• Article 22(5) mandates that each ground for detention must be individually specified and not vague, ensuring transparency and accountability in the detention process.
• It is manifest that vagueness of grounds of detention strikes at the root of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, thereby vitiating the order of detention, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court stated.