SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has upheld the preventive detention of a Pulwama resident under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), observing that preventive detention laws are intended to stop activities prejudicial to the security of the State before they are executed.
The judgment was delivered by Justice M. A. Chowdhary in Jahangir Ahmad Parray v. UT of J&K and Others on May 11, 2026. The case had been reserved on April 30, 2026.
The petitioner, Jahangir Ahmad Parray, son of Ghulam Nabi Parray and a resident of Gulshanpora Tral in Pulwama district, had challenged Detention Order No. 31/DMP/PSA/25 dated May 7, 2025, issued by the District Magistrate Pulwama under Section 8 of the JK Public Safety Act, 1978.
Advocate M. Ashraf Wani appeared for the petitioner, while Government Advocate Furqan Yaqub Sofi represented the respondents, including the Union Territory of JK and the District Magistrate, Pulwama.
The petitioner argued that the detention order had been passed without adhering to constitutional and statutory safeguards. The plea stated that the grounds of detention were vague, relevant material had not been supplied to the detenue, and the representation filed through his father had not been considered by the government.
It was further contended that the detention order relied upon “stale grounds” and therefore deserved to be quashed.
Opposing the petition, the respondents submitted that the detenue was involved in activities prejudicial to the security of the State and that ordinary criminal law had failed to deter him from continuing such activities.
According to the detention record placed before the Court, the detenue had been booked in FIR No. 03/2020 at Police Station Awantipora under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and in FIR No. 04/2021 at Police Station Tral under Sections 506 IPC and Sections 13, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the UA(P) Act.
The Court noted that after securing bail in both cases, the detenue allegedly continued activities linked to banned militant organisations.
The grounds of detention alleged that after passing Class 10 examinations, the detenue became associated with militant outfits Hizbul Mujahideen and Jaish-e-Mohammad and worked as an overground worker by allegedly providing shelter, food, clothing and information to militants.
The Court also noted allegations that the detenue was involved in pasting posters of Hizbul Mujahideen in Gulshanpora and Seer Jagir areas to encourage local support for the outfit.
Besides the two FIRs, the detenue had allegedly been apprehended multiple times between 2023 and 2024 under Sections 107 and 151 CrPC for disturbing peace and tranquillity in the area.
Rejecting the contention that relevant documents had not been supplied, the Court observed that the detention warrant, grounds of detention, dossier and related documents had been furnished to the detenue and explained to him in Urdu and Kashmiri languages.
“The contention of the petitioner for not supplying the material incapacitating him from making an effective and meaningful representation, is not sustainable,” the Court held.
While dealing with the scope of judicial review in preventive detention matters, the Court extensively referred to constitutional principles and Supreme Court precedents, including Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya, Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration, and Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India.
Quoting from the judgment, the Court observed: “Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it and to prevent him from doing so.”
The Court further held that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority could not be substituted by the Court’s own assessment unless mala fide or procedural illegality was established.
Referring to the petitioner’s alleged activities from 2020 to 2024, the Court rejected the plea that the grounds were stale, observing that the detenue was alleged to have remained in touch with “pro-Pakistan terrorist organisations like HM and JeM.”
“Viewed from any angle, no illegality or impropriety is found in the impugned detention order,” the Court said while dismissing the habeas corpus petition along with connected applications.
The Court accordingly upheld the PSA detention order passed by the District Magistrate Pulwama.
