‘Liberty not a plaything’: Court cancels man’s preventive detention in J&K

The order noted that any action of the state and its officials that tends to interfere and intermeddle with any of the fundamental rights, in particular the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, is supposed to be strictly in accordance with the law providing and prescribing.

Detention based on terror links

The petitioner, Fayaz Ahmad Lone, acting through his father, Ghulam Qadir Lone, came forward with the institution of the present writ petition on 29.05.2025 while being in a state of preventive detention custody lodged in District Jail, Rajouri, and has sought restoration of his personal liberty.

The district magistrate, Pulwama, passed a preventive detention order on May 7, 2025, directing Lone’s detention for activities allegedly prejudicial to the security of the State. The order was based on a dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Awantipora. The dossier alleged that Lone had links with the banned terror outfit Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), had developed a separatist ideology, and had assisted an eliminated JeM commander.

The allegations were that the petitioner was alleged to be one of the loyalists of an eliminated terrorist commander, Waqas of JeM, by helping him voluntarily and enabling him to carry out subversive activities.

Police assumptions insufficient basis: Order

• The SSP, Awantipora, through his dossier, means to say that subjecting a citizen to preventive detention custody is a matter of ipse dixit for which nothing factual is required to be reported except self-entertained impression and assumption on the part of the district police.
• There is no reflection of reasoning, and rightly so, because of the lack of facts on the part of the SSP, Awantipora, followed by the district magistrate, Pulwama.
• If the petitioner had been subjected to a final order under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for keeping good behavior to ensure that he desists from attempting to indulge or even indulging in anti-social and anti-national activities, then why the forfeiture of said bond was not resorted to penalise the petitioner not only with financial consequences but also preventive detention by reference to section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

• Simply because the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, provides for preventive detention of a person with respect to the contingencies as envisaged there, does not hand out a licence to the District Police and/or district magistrate, or for that matter even the government to resort to preventive detention as a matter of routine.