SRINAGAR : The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the preventive detention of a Kupwara academic scholar under the Public Safety Act, holding that the authorities failed to establish any specific subversive activity attributable to him that could justify his preventive detention.
Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, in a judgment pronounced on September 2, allowed a habeas corpus petition filed through the paternal uncle of Shafat Maqbool Wani of Kukroosa, Vilgam, Kupwara, and quashed detention order No. 27-DMK/PSA of 2025 dated September 13, 2025.
The court directed that Wani be released from preventive custody forthwith.
Wani had challenged the detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Kupwara, under which he had been placed in preventive detention on the ground that his activities were allegedly detrimental to the security of the State.
His counsel argued that the detention authority had acted mechanically and relied on FIR No. 69/2025 registered at Police Station Handwara under Sections 7/25 of the Arms Act and Sections 13, 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
A significant aspect of the petition was that Wani had already been granted bail by the Special Judge, NIA, Jammu, on September 13, 2025, after the court rejected an application by the NIA seeking extension of his remand beyond 155 days. The petitioner contended that the grounds of detention were vague, had no nexus with him and were based on allegations fabricated to justify his detention.
The government opposed the petition, maintaining that the detention order had been passed after proper application of mind. It submitted that Wani was involved in activities detrimental to the security of the State and that the material relied upon by the detaining authority had been supplied to him and explained to him. The authorities also maintained that he had been informed of his right to make a representation against the detention.
What authorities cited against Wani
While examining the grounds of detention, the High Court noted that the authorities had referred to Wani’s family background, stating that he had been brought up in a family having a “separatist ideology”.
According to the grounds, his father was an ex-militant affiliated with the militant organisation Al-Barq and had surrendered in 1990. The authorities consequently claimed that anti-India and separatist feelings had been inculcated in Wani since childhood.
The detention grounds also referred to Wani having received invitations to attend international academic conferences, including the Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies Graduate Students Conference at Columbia University and the Eighth Annual South Asia Conference at Dublin City University.
The authorities further relied upon his alleged involvement in FIR No. 69/2025 of Police Station Handwara under Sections 13, 17 and 18 of the UAP Act.
The detention record also mentioned the seizure of what the authorities described as “anti-national literature”, including books titled Construction of an Islamic Order in Hindutva Reimagination and The Saffronization of Occupied Kashmir, Demystifying Hindutva Settlers, Colonial Designers.
Court finds lack of specific prejudicial activity
The court noted that during arguments, Wani’s counsel primarily challenged the detention on three grounds: that the detaining authority had failed to identify any specific activity prejudicial to the security of the State; that, apart from the FIR, no prejudicial activity had been attributed to him; and that there were no compelling reasons for invoking preventive detention.
Justice Kazmi observed that although the authorities had acknowledged that Wani had been granted bail, they did not appear to have made any effort to derive the requisite satisfaction regarding any prejudicial activity warranting his preventive detention.
The court held that the argument of non-application of mind by the detaining authority therefore carried substance.
The High Court also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, reported as (2023) 9 SCC 587, which lays down principles for examining the legality of preventive detention.
Among other things, the Supreme Court principles require the detaining authority to apply its mind to all relevant circumstances, rely on material having rational probative value, and ensure a live and proximate link between the past conduct of a person and the imperative need for detention.
The grounds of detention must also be precise, pertinent and relevant, and sufficiently clear to enable the detenue to make an effective representation.
The High Court went on to hold that the material placed before it essentially showed that Wani was alleged to have developed separatist ideology since childhood because his father had been an ex-militant who surrendered in 1990.
The court described this assertion as “delusory” and said that preventive detention based on such an imaginary belief amounted to an unmindful exercise of power.
It further observed that the respondents had not shown any subversive activity on the part of Wani that compelled them to resort to preventive detention.
On the alleged literature seized from him, the court found that the books had been wrongly attributed to Wani as having been authored by him.
The court observed that Wani, being an academic scholar, could be expected to possess a variety of literary material, and that merely possessing books with “dispiriting titles” did not, by itself, make him a criminal against whom preventive detention was required to be invoked.
Detention order quashed
In view of its findings, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed detention order No. 27-DMK/PSA of 2025 dated September 13, 2025.
Wani, son of Mohammad Maqbool Wani and resident of Kukroosa, Tehsil Vilgam, Kupwara, presently associated with Khunbal, Handwara, was directed to be released from preventive custody forthwith.
The judgment was reserved on August 13 and pronounced on September 2, 2026
