Fresh security threat justifies PSA detention, HC rules

11/10/2026

JAMMU, Oct 10: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the preventive detention of a Rajouri resident under the Public Safety Act (PSA), holding that fresh and proximate material indicating a threat to State security can justify detention if constitutional and statutory safeguards are followed.
Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by Qaisar Sajjad Mir alias Ranga, a resident of Old Thanamandi in Rajouri district, challenging detention order No. DMR/PSA/02 of 2026, dated February 24, 2026, issued by the District Magistrate, Rajouri.
The petitioner, lodged in Central Jail, Kotbhalwal, Jammu, had challenged the detention on several grounds, including non-supply of relevant documents, failure to communicate the grounds of detention in a language he understood, denial of an effective opportunity to make a representation and absence of a live and proximate link between the alleged activities and the need for preventive detention.
He also contended that the FIRs referred to by the authorities had been registered against his father and not against him.
The respondents maintained that the detention was based on intelligence inputs, surveillance reports, preventive action records and other relevant material, and that all statutory and constitutional safeguards had been complied with.
After examining the record, Justice Azeem noted that 67 pages comprising the detention order, grounds of detention and supporting documents had been supplied to the detenue against proper acknowledgment. The documents were also read over and explained to him in Urdu/Hindi, and he was informed of his right to make a representation.
The court observed that the detaining authority had independently assessed fresh and sufficiently specific material indicating a threat to State security. It also took note of preventive proceedings initiated in October 2024, May 2025 and February 2026, along with surveillance reports and daily diary entries.
Referring to Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution, the court held that the petitioner had been provided the relevant material and an opportunity to challenge his detention. It further noted that the Advisory Board had examined the case and the government had subsequently confirmed the detention under Section 17(1) of the Public Safety Act.
Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Haradhan Saha versus State of West Bengal, the High Court reiterated that preventive detention is a precautionary measure based on reasonable anticipation and is distinct from punitive detention.
Justice Azeem observed that preventive detention need not necessarily follow the commission of a criminal offence where the available material establishes a reasonable apprehension of activities prejudicial to State security.
The court held that judicial interference with the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction was not warranted in the circumstances, particularly when the prescribed procedural requirements and constitutional safeguards had been complied with.
Finding no illegality, procedural irregularity or violation of constitutional or statutory safeguards, the High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition as devoid of merit and upheld the detention order.
Advocate Mazher Ali Khan appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Sageera Jafar, appearing on behalf of Deputy Advocate General Deewakar Sharma, represented the respondents.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty