HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR HCP No. 232/2024 Reserved on: 13.11.2025 Pronounced on: 24.11.2025 Uploaded on: 26.11.2025 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced:- Full Judgment Showkat Ahmad Bhat …Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Usman Gani, Advocate.

Vs.

UT of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr. …Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1. In exercise of powers under Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short ‘the Act’), respondent No.2 - District Magistrate Pulwama (for short ‘detaining authority’) has passed the Detention Order No. 26/DMP/PSA/24 dated 08.04.2024 (for short ‘impugned order’), in terms whereof the petitioner Showket Ahmad Bhat (for short ‘the detenue’) was ordered to be detained under the Act.

2. The detention of the detenue has been challenged inter alia on the grounds that the allegations leveled in the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations and passing of detention on such grounds is unjustified and unreasonable; that the allegations are bereft of specific details even the date, month and year has not been mentioned in the grounds of detention; that the grounds of detention do not disclose any activity which would prejudice the security of the State or public order; that the relevant material has not been furnished to the detenue and whatever material was furnished to him, it was not possible to make a purposeful representation, thus, the right of the detenue under Article 22 of the Constitution stands violated;

3. It is contended that the detenue submitted a representation to the Government for his release as the detenue is a law abiding citizen and has not committed any act, which warrants his detention under the provision of PSA, however, the representation filed by the detenue was not considered. It is submitted that because of non-consideration of his representation, the detention order slapped upon him is liable to be quashed.

4. Respondents, pursuant to notice, have filed their reply affidavit, wherein it is stated that the order of detention was passed by the detaining authority after being satisfied on the basis of the material available by the police; that it was necessary with a view to prevent the detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State/UT, to place him under preventive detention. It is submitted that the detention of the detenue has been ordered, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the procedural safeguards prescribed under the provisions of the Act and the rights guaranteed to the detenue under the Constitution have strictly been followed in the instant case. It is further submitted that the grounds of detention transpire the activities of the detenue which, on the face of them, are highly prejudicial to the security of the State/UT and, therefore, there was no option left to the detaining authority but to order detention of the detenue under the Act.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record and considered.

6. On going through the grounds of detention, it comes to fore that the detenue was working as over ground worker (OGW) with the banned terrorist organization TRF; that the detenue was rendering every possible assistance in carrying out subversive activities in the area; that the detenue was reportedly been indulging in radicalizing the youth and asking them to take steps against the security and integrity of the country; that the detenue portray the militants as role models and youth icons, striving to destabilize the peace and stability achieved through the arduous efforts of the police and other security agencies; that in order to prevent the detenue from indulging in the activities prejudicial to the security of the State/UT, was found necessary to detain him under the provisions of J&K Public Safet