Preventive detention orders are unsustainable when based on stale grounds lacking a live link to the present, when the detaining authority fails to apply its mind independently by verbatim copying of records, or when the necessity of such detention is not justified over the application of ordinary criminal law.

JUDGMENT

1. Habeas Corpus Petition is a legal instrument used to challenge unlawful detention. It compels the authorities to bring the detained individual before the court to examine the legality of their detention.

2. The petitioner herein namely Ghulam Hassan Malla is aggrieved of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Kupwara-respondent No.2 (for short ‘Detaining Authority’), who, in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 8(1)(a)(i) of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, has detained the petitioner in order to prevent him from the activities prejudicial to the security of the UT of J&K in terms of detention Order No. 16-DMK/PSA of 2025 dated 01.05.2025 (for short ‘impugned order’).

1. The order of detention is challenged inter alia, on the grounds that the respondents have not followed due procedure of law while detaining the detenue under the preventive law which renders his detention illegal; that the illegal activities attributed to the detenue are all imaginary, false, baseless, concocted and based on surmises; that the detenue was illegally implicated in FIR No. 57/2013 under Section 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act registered at Police Station, Lalpora; that the petitioner after facing full trial in said FIR No.57/2023 had finally been acquitted from the case; that after registration of FIR No. 57/2013 there are no fresh allegations leveled against the detenue; that the detaining authority has not applied its mind while preparing the grounds of detention and has acted as spokesman of the Police agencies and has framed the grounds of detention at their behest; that there is no cogent material to detain the detenue under the preventive law; that the satisfaction is illusory and not valid one; that the detention of the detenue is patently illegal and against the law and deserves to be quashed.

2. Respondents, pursuant to notice after admission of the petition to hearing, filed their counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the order of detention is based on a reasonable prediction of future behavior of the detenue. The detenue’s anti-national and illegal activities have posed a serious threat to the public safety and security of State. It is submitted that the preventive detention is devised to afford protection to the Society and the object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept him before he does it and to prevent him from doing. It is further stated that any preventive measures, even if they involve some restraint or hardship upon individuals, do not contribute in any way to the nature of punishment.

3. Learned counsel for the detenue has raised the plea of vagueness in the grounds of detention. It is being stated that the allegations leveled in the grounds of detention relate to the year 2013 and those activities have no proximity with present time for the purpose of preventive detention unless any fresh activity is not attributed to the petitioner. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not mentioned in the impugned detention order that normal law was ever invoked before taking recourse to preventive detention law and that too was applied merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. It was prayed to upset the impugned order being unsustainable for the aforestated grounds.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, ex adverso, supporting the detention order, contended that the detenue’s continuous anti-national and illegal activities, made it imperative to detain the detenue under the provisions of Public Safety Act and there were sufficient grounds available for such detention. It is fur