HC quashes 3 preventive detentions, upholds PSA orders against 2

11/07/2026

JAMMU/SRINAGAR, Jul 10: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed preventive detention orders against three persons, holding that the authorities failed to satisfy constitutional and statutory safeguards, while upholding the detention of two others under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA).
In five separate judgments, the Court ordered the release of Amir Ahmad Wani, Asif Ahmad Dar and Bilal Ahmad Langoo alias Owais, while dismissing habeas corpus petitions filed by Shamma and Sandeep Kumar alias Chotu.
Justice Rahul Bharti quashed the PSA detention of Amir Ahmad Wani, who had been detained by the District Magistrate, Anantnag, on August 5, 2025, over his alleged repeated involvement in illegal sand extraction.
The Court held that even if the allegations under mining laws were assumed to be true, they could not amount to activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order warranting preventive detention. It observed that the authorities ought to have proceeded against the petitioner under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and other penal laws instead of invoking the PSA.
The Court also found that the District Magistrate had substantially reproduced the police dossier while recording the grounds of detention, reflecting non-application of mind. Accordingly, the detention order along with its approval, confirmation and extension orders was quashed and Wani's release directed.
Advocate Arif Javid Khan represented the petitioner, while Government Advocate Ilyas Nazir Laway appeared for the administration.
In another case, Justice Rahul Bharti set aside the PSA detention of Asif Ahmad Dar, who had been detained by the District Magistrate, Pulwama, on April 30, 2025, on allegations of activities prejudicial to the security of the State.
The Court found that the detenue had been informed only about his right to make a representation to the Government and not to the detaining authority. It further noted that a representation submitted by Dar's wife before the District Magistrate was not forwarded to the Advisory Board despite the authorities being aware of it.
Holding that these omissions violated constitutional and procedural safeguards available to the detenue, the Court quashed the detention order and directed Dar's release.
Advocates M. Ayoub Bhat and Mahjabeena Bhat appeared for the petitioner.
Justice Sanjay Dhar quashed the preventive detention of Bilal Ahmad Langoo alias Owais under the J&K Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.
The Court observed that although the authorities alleged Langoo continued to indulge in drug-related activities after being granted bail, the detention order failed to specify the alleged activities or the places where they occurred. It also found that the field reports relied upon by the detaining authority were not placed on record.
Justice Dhar further held that the detaining authority had shown non-application of mind by observing that detention was necessary to prevent the detenue from committing an "offence" under the PITNDPS Act, although the preventive detention statute itself does not define any offence.
The detention order was quashed and Langoo's release ordered, subject to his not being required in any other case.
Advocate Mueed-ul-Islam Shah represented the petitioner, while Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadiri, assisted by Maha Majeed, appeared for the respondents.
Meanwhile, Justice M.A. Chowdhary dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by Shamma, upholding his detention under the PSA.
The Court found that 92 leaves of relevant documents had been supplied to the detenue, their contents explained in Urdu and Dogri, and that he had been informed of his right to make representations before both the Government and the detaining authority. It also held that criminal prosecution and preventive detention operate in different fields and that grant of bail or discharge does not bar preventive detention where the competent authority is satisfied that such detention is necessary.
Advocate Ajaz Chowdhary appeared for the petitioner, while Deputy Advocate General Pawan Dev Singh represented the administration.
In a separate judgment, Justice M.A. Chowdhary also upheld the PSA detention of Sandeep Kumar alias Chotu of R.S. Pura, Jammu, who had been detained on January 24, 2026.
The Court noted that the administration had relied upon his alleged involvement in 13 criminal cases relating to offences including attempt to murder, kidnapping, narcotics, armed assault, house trespass, intimidation and attacks on public servants.
Rejecting the contention that the detention grounds were merely a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier, the Court held that similarity in language alone did not establish non-application of mind. It also found that 301 leaves of documents had been supplied to the detenue, explained in Hindi and Dogri, and that his representation had been duly considered and its disposal communicated to him.
Observing that preventive detention is intended to prevent future prejudicial activities rather than punish past conduct, the Court upheld the detention order and dismissed the petition.
Advocate Jagpaul Singh appeared for Sandeep Kumar, while Deputy Advocate General Pawan Dev Singh represented the respondents.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty