Lawyers Dodge PSA Shadow: J&K High Court Draws Line in Srinagar Court Clash

In a swift move amid rising tensions, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has granted interim protection to a group of lawyers led by Irfan Akbar Malla, barring authorities from invoking the stringent Public Safety Act (PSA) against them without court nod. Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi issued the order on March 31, 2026, in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 30/2026, threading the needle between ongoing police probe and fears of preventive detention.

From Mediation Mayhem to Viral Fury

The flashpoint erupted on March 12, 2026, inside Srinagar's District Court premises during mediation in a domestic violence case. Petitioners—practicing advocates—allege they were obstructed, abused, and provoked by a private individual. A video capturing a lawyer striking the man with a belt exploded on social media, reportedly selectively edited to inflame public outrage. This led to FIR No. 27/2026 at Police Station Batmaloo, prompting the lawyers' preemptive HCP to block PSA detention.

The petitioners argued that despite the matter being under substantive criminal investigation, authorities might still slap preventive detention, a draconian measure often criticized for its vagueness in J&K.

Petitioners' Plea vs. State's Assurance

Senior Advocate Z.A. Shah, for the lawyers, hammered home the apprehension: even with the FIR under regular penal scrutiny, PSA loomed as a tool for the complainant-driven authorities. "The incident is already the subject matter of investigation under substantive penal law," Shah contended, seeking a blanket restraint on coercive steps.

On the other side, Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadiri, backed by instructions, allayed fears: "The respondent-authorities, as on date, have no intention to detain the petitioners under the Public Safety Act on the basis of FIR No. 27/2026." Yet, the court wasn't taking chances, issuing notice and granting four weeks for a formal reply.

Court's Prudent Pause: No Detention, But Strings Attached

Justice Kazmi's bench dissected the balance—protecting liberty while ensuring public order. No precedents were directly invoked, but the order underscores habeas corpus as a bulwark against arbitrary detention, especially when regular probes suffice.

Key Observations:

"By the present Habeas Corpus petition, the petitioners are seeking a direction upon the respondents to refrain from detaining them under and in terms of the provisions of the Public Safety Act..."

"Learned Senior Counsel... submits that the petitioners apprehend that... the respondent-authorities may invoke the provisions of the Public Safety Act against them..."

"In the meantime, the respondents are directed not to detain the petitioners... without prior permission of this Court."

The lawyers must file an undertaking with the Registrar Judicial, pledging not to "take the law into their own hands" or repeat the March 12 incident.

Ripple Effects: Safeguard or Slap on Wrist?

This interim order—listing next on April 24, 2026—signals judicial wariness of PSA overuse in politically charged J&K, where preventive detention has long shadowed dissent. For the lawyers, it's breathing room to fight the FIR without incarceration fears. Broader implications? It reinforces that FIR probes must play out before jumping to PSA, potentially curbing misuse in viral outrage cases. As social media fuels FIRs, courts may increasingly demand such undertakings to maintain order without overreach.