Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
SANJAY DHAR
Kamal @ Kaka – Appellant
Versus
UT of J&K – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY DHAR, J.
01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged order No. PSA/165 dated 16.06.2025 (hereinafter to be referred to as “impugned order of detention”) issued by respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Kathua whereby he has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from continuing his criminal activities and to maintain public peace and order.
02. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of detention on the ground that whole of the material, forming the basis of grounds of detention, has not been furnished to him, which has deprived him from making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention. It has also been contended that the grounds of detention are replica of the dossier of SSP, Kathua. It has also been contended the grounds of detention have not been explained to the petitioner in a language which he understands. It has also been contended that activities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner cannot form a basis for passing of impugned order of detention on the ground that the same are prejudicial to the public order.
03. It has further been contended that that th
Unexplained one-month delay in passing preventive detention order post-dossier vitiates it, indicating no urgency; bovine transportation offences insufficient for public order threat without recorded....
Preventive detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act requires clear evidence linking alleged activities to public order threats, which was absent in this case.
Preventive detention must be justified by a clear threat to public order, not merely law and order issues, and should be reserved for exceptional cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that activities must have the potential to disturb public order by affecting the community or public at large to be considered prejudicial to publi....
Unexplained 133-day delay from last prejudicial act snaps live link, vitiating preventive detention order. Solitary individualistic offence affects law and order, not public order justifying detentio....
Preventive detention orders must be executed promptly and based on clear grounds; failure to do so renders the order invalid.
The judgment established the importance of the impact on public order and the requirement for the detaining authority to provide a reasonable explanation for any delay in issuing the detention order.
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
