Censuring the police’s “half-baked” inputs against a man accused of terror links, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently quashed a detention order of the Pulwama district magistrate, holding it illegal.
“Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Pulwama, fed the respondent No.2, District Magistrate, Pulwama, with half-backed factual inputs with malice in law if not on fact. This singular omission on the part of the respondent … resulted in infesting every exercise of jurisdiction under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, by the… district magistrate.. with an illegality which is incurable and therefore, renders the preventive detention of the petitioner illegal and an abuse of law, warranting it to be quashed,” the order on March 31 noted.
The detention order passed by the district magistrate under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, is quashed, said the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court.
Illegal, incurable detention: Court
The court emphasised that while examining the detention grounds, only the period after the petitioner’s release from his earlier detention should be considered.
Otherwise, relying on past allegations would unfairly prejudice him, as he cannot be detained again on the same grounds, the court said.
The court reflected that the SSP, Pulwama, fed the district magistrate, Pulwama, with ‘half-baked’ factual inputs with ‘malice’ in law.
The omission on the part of the police officer resulted in infesting very exercise of jurisdiction under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 by the District Magistrate.
Story continues below this ad
The detention was borne out of illegality, which was incurable and therefore renders the preventive detention of the petitioner illegal and an abuse of law, warranting quashing.
Petitioner challenged his detention
Advocates G N Shaheen and Asif Nabi were representing the petitioner in the matter.
They contended that the detention was based upon vague and mere assertions and assumptions of the detaining authority, with the grounds of detention bearing no nexus with the petitioner but all fabricated by the Police to justify submission of a case for preventive detention of the petitioner.
The counsel argued that although the dossier and detention grounds claimed he planned to join terrorism, they do not name the officer involved or mention the date or place of the alleged plan.
Story continues below this ad
They submitted that the petitioner had previously also been subjected to the preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate, Pulwama, which was later quashed, restoring his personal liberty after almost one year of preventive detention.
It was submitted that the first detention order and the second detention order both bear common reference to FIR, which is reflective of the fact that the SSP and District Magistrate, Pulwama, are adversely branding the petitioner to keep him suffering repetitive preventive detention.
Activities prejudicial to state’s security
The petitioner was 25 years of age, against whom the SSP, Pulwama, alleged that his activities were prejudicial to the security of the state, warranting his preventive detention under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.
On April 30, 2025, the District Magistrate, Pulwama, alleged that the petitioner’s reported activities were fit enough to subject him to suffer preventive detention custody to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the state.
Story continues below this ad
In the grounds of detention, the petitioner came to be referred to as a school dropout who came in contact with the terrorists under whose influence he agreed to carry out subversive activities in the area.
The petitioner was reported to have been sharing prior information with the active terrorists before the Cordon and Search Operations (CASOs) of the adjoining area of Drabgam with the help of the Blackberry Messenger Mobile application, enabling them to escape.
The petitioner allegedly had been arrested in the year 2020 at Drabgam Shadimarg Road, in alleged possession of two Chinese grenades, leading to the registration of an FIR, but was bailed out on October 15, 2020.
Petitoner in contact with active terrorist
The petitioner was allegedly secretly maintaining contacts with active terrorists, providing logistic support to the local and foreign terrorists to facilitate their movement and conceal their arms at remote destinations.
Story continues below this ad
He was allegedly providing shelter, food and information about the movement of the security forces in the area of the terrorist.
On January 11, 2025, he was brought under preventive measures under Sections of the BNSS Act by the Police Station, Rajpora.
He was allegedly still working as an overground worker, carrying on with his alleged old state of activities, making him a case to suffer preventive detention.
On May, 2025, the petitioner was handed over a notice of the detention order and the relevant documents, besides being explained to him in the languages Urdu/Kashmiri.
Story continues below this ad
A receipt was taken from the petitioner, and on examining it, one receipt mentions the month and year but not the date, while another has the date added by hand.
Jammu & Kashmir Advisory Board
The detention order, issued by the District Magistrate, Pulwama, was approved by the J&K Government’s Home Department on May 8, 2025, and the case was sent to the advisory board for its opinion.
The Jammu & Kashmir Advisory Board came forward with its opinion report dated May 20, 2025, holding the preventive detention of the petitioner to be resting upon justifiable grounds and was meeting all the procedural compliances.
The Board referred its opinion report that there was no representation from the end of the petitioner against his preventive detention, and that constituted no rebuttal from the end of the petitioner.
Story continues below this ad
The board’s opinion paved the way for the issuance of the government order on May 23, 2025, confirming the detention with effect from May, 2025 till October 31, 2025.
The detention order passed by the district magistrate under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, is quashed, said the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court.