HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

WP(Crl) No. 123/2023

Reserved on: 11.12.2025

Pronounced on: 17.12.2025 Uploaded on: 20.12.2025

Whether the operative part or full

judgment is pronounced-Full Judgment

Ashiq Hussain Wani

…Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. N.A.Ronga, Advocate.

Vs.

Union Territory of J&K & Anr.

…Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Furqan Sofi, GA vice

Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr.AAG.

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

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner, in terms of the detention order No.

DMS/PSA/116/2022 dated 12.09.2022 (for short ‘impugned order’), has been detained in the interest of security of the UT of J&K by District Magistrate Srinagar-Respondent No.2 (for short ‘detaining authority’) in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. The said detention order has been challenged through the medium of present petition, allegedly being in breach of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution

of India.

2. The petitioner has pleaded in the petition, that the detenue was

implicated in a case FIR No.137/2022 without any justification and was placed in illegal confinement. It is being contended that the allegations/grounds of detention are vague and mere assertions of the

detaining authority and no prudent man can make an effective representation against these allegations. Furthermore, it is stated that the allegations whose mention is made in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue. In addition, it is stated that the detaining authority has not prepared the grounds of detention by itself, whileas, relied the impugned detention order upon dossier only.

3. This court, as an interim measure, had stayed the execution of the impugned order, while directing the respondents to file reply to the petition.

4. Respondents in their reply affidavit have stated that the grounds of detention are precise, proximate, pertinent and relevant. There is no vagueness or staleness in the grounds coupled with definite indications as to the impact thereof, which has been precisely stated in the grounds of detention. Further it is contended that the grounds of detention give complete account of the activities of the detenue which are highly prejudicial for maintenance of security of the UT of J&K, as such, there was no option left but to order detention of the detenue under Public Safety Act.

5. The main plea of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations made 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. All the allegations levelled against the detenue are far from reality and that the detenue is not involved in any unlawful activity, so as to justify his preventive detention.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, ex-adverso, submits that there is no vagueness in the grounds of detention. The procedural safeguards prescribed under the provisions of Public Safety Act and the rights guaranteed to the detenue under the Constitution have strictly been followed in the present case. He further argued that the pleas of the grounds of detention being vague, non-existent, non- relevant, not proximate or invalid, shall not invalidate the detention order as statutorily provided in Section 10-A of the J&K PSA, in terms whereof petitioner has been detained. He finally submits that the impugned detention order, having been passed perfectly in consonance with law, grounds of detention explained / communicated to the detenue, all safeguards complied with the subjective satisfaction of detaining authority, cannot be gone into, to substantiate its own opinion by the Court. It was prayed to uphold the impugned detention order.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on file and considered.

8. Grounds of detention reveal that the petitioner has an evil ideology for fomenting trouble which is likely threat to the securi