‘Ditto’ police dossier cannot sustain PSA detention: High Court

08/08/2026

JAMMU, Aug 7: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the preventive detention of two Shopian residents under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), holding that detention orders based on a verbatim reproduction of a police dossier and unsupported by substantive material cannot justify curtailment of personal liberty.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani allowed separate Letters Patent Appeals filed by Ubaid Yousuf Kuttay and Abdul Basit Paul, both residents of Chotipora, Shopian, setting aside the judgments of a Single Bench that had upheld their detention.
The two were detained under separate orders issued by the District Magistrate, Shopian, on September 12, 2024, under Section 8 of the Public Safety Act.
According to the authorities, Ubaid Kuttay had provided shelter and logistical support to his brother, Shahid Yousuf Kuttay, and another alleged terrorist, Abid Ramzan Sheikh, besides maintaining contact with Pakistan-based handlers.
Abdul Basit Paul was similarly accused of providing shelter, food, information and logistical assistance to the two alleged terrorists and of remaining in touch with Pakistan-based handlers.
The Division Bench, however, observed that the allegations against both detenues were not supported by any FIR or even entries in the relevant police station records. It held that the detention orders were founded on "vague, unverifiable and bald allegations" lacking supporting material.
The court further found that the grounds of detention were virtually a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier, indicating non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
The Bench observed that while a police dossier may serve as the basis for initiating preventive detention, the detaining authority is required to independently examine the material and arrive at its own subjective satisfaction before depriving a person of liberty.
Drawing a distinction between an allegation and a charge, the court held that while an allegation may merely be an imputation, a charge must be supported by verifiable material. It said the grounds of detention must be specific, precise and unequivocal to enable the detenue to make an effective representation.
The court observed that detention based solely on unsubstantiated allegations, without furnishing material relied upon by the authorities, violates the constitutional safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution.
The Bench also found deficiencies in the supply of the complete detention record and communication of the detenues' right to make an effective representation, holding that non-supply of all relied-upon material vitiated the detention orders.
In Ubaid Kuttay's case, the court also noted that his brother, Shahid Yousuf Kuttay, whom he was alleged to have supported, had been killed on May 13, 2025. It held that this development had snapped the "live link" between the alleged activities and the need for continued preventive detention.
Advocates B.A. Tak and Muzaffer Mohi Ud Din appeared for the appellants, while Deputy Advocate General Bikramdeep Singh represented the Union Territory administration.
Allowing both appeals, the Division Bench quashed detention order No. 189/DMS/PSA/2024 against Ubaid Yousuf Kuttay and detention order No. 191/DMS/PSA/2024 against Abdul Basit Paul, directing their release from preventive detention if they were not required in any other case. The court noted that both detenues had already undergone almost the entire period of detention, with only about one month remaining.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty