Kashmir Impulse Desk
Srinagar, Sep 15
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the preventive detention of three people under the Public Safety Act and ordered their release unless they are required in other criminal cases.
A bench headed by Justice M A Chowdhary quashed the detention orders against Subzar Ahmad Ganie of Shopian and Firdous Ahmad Dar and Ishfaq Ahmad Wani of Anantnag.
In Ganie’s case, the court set aside a detention order issued by the Shopian district magistrate on December 24, 2025, saying the grounds did not provide specific details linking him to alleged activities involving terrorist or overground worker elements.
The court also said authorities had failed to provide material relied upon for the detention, affecting the detainee’s ability to make an effective representation as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Ganie’s representation, filed on January 7, was rejected on February 24, which the court found inconsistent with the requirement that preventive detention representations be considered promptly.
In Dar’s case, the court noted that authorities had not satisfactorily explained the delay in executing his detention order.
It also noted that Dar had appeared before a trial court in June 2022 in a criminal case that had been cited as a basis for his preventive detention.
The court said authorities had not demonstrated that effective steps under Section 12 of the PSA had been taken on the allegation that Dar was absconding.
It also considered his acquittal in one case and bail granted in others, saying intervening developments could not be ignored when assessing the basis for preventive detention.
In Wani’s case, the court quashed a detention order dated April 29, 2025, finding that the authority had not meaningfully considered the fact that a case cited against him had resulted in bail.
The court also noted substantial similarities between the police dossier and the grounds of detention, raising concerns that the detaining authority had adopted the police account without independent assessment.
The bench reiterated that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure intended to prevent future conduct rather than punish past acts.
It said judicial review remained available where detention was based on irrelevant or stale material, involved non-application of mind, relied on vague grounds, or breached constitutional and statutory safeguards.
