1. Challenge to preventive detention order under Section 8, J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 for security of State. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 680
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
M. A. Chowdhary, J
MOHAMMAD ASHRAF SHEIKH – Appellant
Versus
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (HOME) AND ORS – Respondent
HCP 8 / 2025
Important Points
Preventive detention is a protective, not punitive, measure. Judicial review is limited to verifying procedural compliance and that the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction is based on rational grounds; the court cannot substitute its own view for that of the authority or evaluate the truth of the facts.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Preventive Detention
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 - Section 8 - Constitution of India - Article 22(5) - Preventive detention - Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority - Judicial review - Scope of interference - Preventive detention is aimed at preventing the commission of an offence or preventing the detained person from achieving a certain end; its object is to protect society from activities likely to deprive people of their right to life and personal liberty, and is not intended to punish a person for past actions (Paras 7, 13, 14).
(B) Scope of Judicial Review - The court's role in examining the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is limited and cannot act as a court of appeal to determine if another view was possible based on the available material - Courts do not examine whether the facts mentioned in the grounds of detention are correct or false, as such evaluation is within the competence of the advisory board (Paras 11, 12).
(C) Procedural Compliance - The supply of the detention warrant and grounds of detention, and informing the detenue of the right to make a representation to the authority and the government, are essential procedural requirements to ensure the right to personal liberty is not arbitrarily curtailed (Para 9).
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed challenging a detention order passed to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the state. The petitioner had a history of involvement in anti-national activities, including previous arrests under the Arms Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, as well as involvement in criminal cases and multiple instances of preventive detention. The petitioner assailed the order on the grounds that the allegations were vague, the grounds were stale, and that necessary material was not provided to make an effective representation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the grounds of detention were definite and unambiguous. The record established that the detention warrant and grounds were duly served and explained in the local language, and the petitioner was explicitly informed of the right to make a representation. The prior criminal record and activities of the petitioner provided sufficient basis for the detaining authority's satisfaction.
Issues: Whether the detention order was passed on vague or stale grounds and whether the petitioner's right to a meaningful representation was defeated due to non-supply of material.
Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention is a preventive action designed to protect society and the state from subversive elements; it is not curative, reformative, or punitive. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, when based on rational grounds, cannot be substituted by the court's objective test. Judicial review is limited to ensuring procedural compliance and that the grounds are not completely disconnected from the objective of the detention.
Result: present petition is dismissed and impugned order is upheld.
(B) Scope of Judicial Review - The court's role in examining the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is limited and cannot act as a court of appeal to determine if another view was possible based on the available material - Courts do not examine whether the facts mentioned in the grounds of detention are correct or false, as such evaluation is within the competence of the advisory board (Paras 11, 12).
(C) Procedural Compliance - The supply of the detention warrant and grounds of detention, and informing the detenue of the right to make a representation to the authority and the government, are essential procedural requirements to ensure the right to personal liberty is not arbitrarily curtailed (Para 9).
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed challenging a detention order passed to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the state. The petitioner had a history of involvement in anti-national activities, including previous arrests under the Arms Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, as well as involvement in criminal cases and multiple instances of preventive detention. The petitioner assailed the order on the grounds that the allegations were vague, the grounds were stale, and that necessary material was not provided to make an effective representation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the grounds of detention were definite and unambiguous. The record established that the detention warrant and grounds were duly served and explained in the local language, and the petitioner was explicitly informed of the right to make a representation. The prior criminal record and activities of the petitioner provided sufficient basis for the detaining authority's satisfaction.
Issues: Whether the detention order was passed on vague or stale grounds and whether the petitioner's right to a meaningful representation was defeated due to non-supply of material.
Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention is a preventive action designed to protect society and the state from subversive elements; it is not curative, reformative, or punitive. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, when based on rational grounds, cannot be substituted by the court's objective test. Judicial review is limited to ensuring procedural compliance and that the grounds are not completely disconnected from the objective of the detention.
Result: present petition is dismissed and impugned order is upheld.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- crime and sentencing
-
statutory interpretation
-
jammu and kashmir public safety act, 1978
- section 8 (Para 1)
-
jammu and kashmir public safety act, 1978
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Adil Pandit, Nida Nazir
For the Respondents: Bikramdeep Singh
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Adil Pandit, Nida Nazir
For the Respondents: Bikramdeep Singh
Table of Contents
2. Detenue argued grounds were vague and material not supplied; State contended detention preventive and justified. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Court found grounds definite, procedural safeguards complied with, and detention based on subjective satisfaction. (Para 5 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 14 )
4. Preventive detention is based on subjective satisfaction; court cannot substitute its own view if grounds rational. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 )
5. Petition dismissed; impugned detention order upheld. (Para 16 )
6. What is the scope of judicial review in preventive detention cases?
Courts do not substitute their own objective test; they only examine if grounds are rational and connected to statutory objects. (Para 10 , 11 )
7. Is supply of grounds and material necessary for effective representation?
Yes, but if copy of detention warrant, grounds, dossier, and FIRs are supplied and explained, the right is satisfied. (Para 9 )
8. Can stale grounds justify preventive detention?
No, but here the detenue's continuous anti-national activities from 2022 to 2024 were considered fresh and relevant. (Para 5 , 8 )
9. What is the purpose of preventive detention?
It is to intercept and prevent a person from acting prejudicially before he does so, not to punish. (Para 7 , 13 , 14 )
JUDGMENT
1. Impugned in this petition is the Detention Order No. DMB/PSA/11 of 2024 dated 23.11.2024 (for short ‘impugned order’) passed by respondent no. 2-District Magistrate, Budgam in terms whereof petitioner came to be detained under Section- 8 of The J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the ‘security of State’.
2. Through the medium of the present petition, petitioner assails his detention order, on the grounds that the detenue has been detained under the Public Safety Act on false and flimsy grounds without any justification; that the grounds of detention are vague and mere assertions of the detaining authority and no prudent man can make an effective and meaningful representation against these allegations. Further plea of the detenue is that he has not been provided the material/documents relied upon by the detaining authority, so as to make an effective representation before the detaining authority; that he was not informed that he can make a representation before the District Magistrate, therefore, a valuable right of the detenue stands defeated; that the Detaining authority, while passing the impugned order, has relied upon the stale grounds, therefore, the same is not sustainable. It was prayed to quash the impugned order for the afore-stated grounds.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2-District Magistrate Budgam resisting the present petition. It is contended that detaining a person under the provisions of Public Safety Act is always preventive in nature and its sole aim is to prevent a person from pursuing anti-national/anti-social activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order/security of the State. In the instant case there is enough material against the detenue which is highly suggestive of the fact that the normal law of the land is not sufficient to prevent him from continuing with his anti-national activities and it is evident that the detenue is highly motivated and is not likely to desist from anti-national and unlawful activities.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the detention record produced by learned counsel for the respondents and considered.
5. Perusal of the detention record would indicate that the detenue was earlier apprehended in a case registered vide FIR No. 35/2022 under sections 7/25 IA Act , and 13, 23, 39 UA(P) Act at P/S Beerwah and was released on bail on 19.11.2022 by the competent court of law. Again the detenue was apprehended in a case registered vide FIR No.55/2024 under sections 447, 323, 354 IPC at P/S Magam. Thereafter, the detenue was kept under preventive measures several times under section 107/151 Cr.PC (now 126/170 BNSS ) on 06.05.2023, 29.08.2023, 03.04.2024, 03.07.2024 and 01.08.2024, for his involvement in anti-national activities. The aforestated reasons persuaded the Detaining authority to curb his activities to order detention of the detenue under the provisions of The J&K Public Safety Act.
6. Undoubtedly Right of personal liberty is a most precious right guaranteed under the Constitution of India. A person is not to be deprived of his personal liberty, except in accordance with procedures established under law and the procedure as laid down in the case ‘ Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India , (1978 AIR SC 597)’, is to be just and fair. The personal liberty may be curtailed where a person faces a criminal charge or is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment. Where a person is facing trial on a criminal charge and is temporarily deprived of his personal liberty owing to criminal charge framed against him, he has an opportunity to defend himself and to be acquitted of the charge in case prosecution fails to bring home his guilt. Where such person is convicted of offence, he still has satisfaction of having been given adequate opportunity to contest the charge and also adduce evidence in his defense.
