Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
RAHUL BHARTI
Mudasir Ahmad Bhat – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory Of J&K – Respondent
JUDGMENT
RAHUL BHARTI, J.
01. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well for the respondents. Perused the pleadings i.e. the writ petition and the annexures therewith as well as the counter affidavit. Detention record produced from the end of the respondents by Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, learned GA also examined.
02. The best opening which adjudication of this case deserves to be put at first is the ever awakening words of renowned Scientist Albert Einstein saying that “Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with the important matters.”
03. Exercise of jurisdiction under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 is constitutionally meant and understood to be very serious jurisdiction which admits of no carelessness on the part of its handlers at any stage of but in the present case the respondents No. 1 to 3 are found to be acting in converse to the aforesaid saying of Mr. Albert Einstein.
04. This is a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India filed on 27.05.2025 by the petitioner- Mudasir Ahmad Bhat, acting through his wife Mst. Shagufta Akhter, thereby seeking a writ of habeas corpus for quashment of preventive detention which came to
Preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act was found illegal due to lack of substantive grounds and procedural violations, emphasizing the protection of personal liberty.
Preventive detention must be justified by clear grounds and cannot serve punitive purposes; failure to differentiate factual basis renders detention illegal.
The distinction between law and order and public order is crucial in cases of preventive detention, and the impact on the community must be considered. The failure to respond to the petitioner's repr....
Preventive detention orders must have a clear link to recent activities; failure to disclose essential facts renders such orders illegal.
The court held that preventive detention requires substantiated and lawful justifications, ruling against arbitrary state authority.
Preventive detention under PSA invalid when based solely on unculminated BNSS preventive proceedings absent final orders, criminal antecedents or specific facts, rendering grounds vague smokescreen v....
The need for proximate and rational connection of past conduct to the necessity of preventive detention, and the illegality of mala fide detention.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
