Jammu and Kashmir High Court quashes detention over ‘Lord Ram’ Facebook post

“If the activities of the petitioner were so highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the District Magistrate was actually and genuinely concerned, he was expected to act with greater promptitude in making the order of detention immediately after it was brought to his notice and a proposal for his detention was made by the sponsoring authority. The petitioner in such a case would not have been allowed to remain at large for 38 days to carry on with his anti-social activities,” the August 29 order said.

The order added that the detaining authority “slept over the matter for a considerable period and turned a blind eye in passing the detention order against the petitioner at the earliest from the date recommendation for his detention was made.”

Justice Rajesh Sekhri cancelled a detention order against a man accused of making derogatory remarks against “Lord Ram”.

Lord Ram remarks, Karwa Chauth mockery to detention 

The 41-year-old man was detained under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act on December 8, 2025, on the recommendation of the SSP, Kathua. The police dossier cited four FIRs and two daily diary reports (DDRs) against him. The authorities also alleged that he was a history sheeter who made, and was known for delivering, inflammatory and provocative speeches to incite public sentiment and create disharmony and disturbance in public order. 

It was alleged that he had been continuously indulging in such activities, prompting and propagating feelings of enmity on religious and caste lines to spread hatred in the area, and despite repeated warnings and legal actions, he continued to disseminate hateful and inflammatory content through social media. 

The detention was based on alleged derogatory comments against “Lord Ram” and a Facebook video in which he allegedly mocked Hindu women observing fast on the “Karwa chauth” festival. The authorities stated that his speeches exhibit a consistent pattern of behaviour, whereby he intentionally and maliciously disseminates hate speech to create disharmony and enmity among different castes and religions 

Bail on December 4, detention on December 8?

Senior Advocate K S Johal and Advocate Supreet Singh Johal, appearing for the man, argued that there was an unexplained 38-day gap between SSP’s recommendations on October 30, 2025, and the detention order on December 8, 2025. It was argued that the delay broke the required “live and proximate” connection between the alleged activities and the need for his immediate detention.

It was submitted that the authorities suppressed the pre-arrest bail granted to the man on December 4, 2025, in the last FIR cited against him. The bail order came only four days after the PSA detention order.

Government Advocate Suneel Malhotra argued that the order was passed after proper satisfaction based on cogent material, including multiple FIRs and the relevant record, demonstrating a consistent pattern of conduct by the petitioner that threatens public order and communal harmony. 

The counsel also submitted that the man was afforded a full and fair opportunity to make representation against his detention order to the government within the stipulated time period, and that his representation was considered and rejected.

Detention order set aside

The court observed that the unreasonable and unexplained delay on the part of the detaining authority to order immediate detention of the petitioner following the proposal of the sponsoring authority, as such, does not commensurate with the fact situation of the present case. 

The court held that concealment of a vital fact of a bail order by the sponsoring authority from the detaining authority invalidates a preventive detention order for the simple reason that this omission not only disables the detaining authority from making a legally sound “subjective satisfaction”, but also violates the constitutional rights of the detenue. The court allowed his plea and set aside the order against him.