SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed a preventive detention order issued against an Anantnag man under the Public Safety Act (PSA), holding that criminal cases dating back nearly two decades, several of which ended in acquittal, did not establish a sufficient basis for his detention in 2024.
Justice Sanjay Parihar, in an order dated October 8, 2026, allowed a petition filed by Rouf Ahmad Wani challenging Detention Order No. 26/DMA/PSA/DET/2024, issued by the District Magistrate, Anantnag, on October 24, 2024, under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.
The court observed that the authorities had failed to establish a live and proximate connection between the allegations against Wani and the claimed necessity to prevent activities prejudicial to public order. It also took note of the unexplained delay in executing the detention order, which remained unexecuted when the petition was filed.
Examining the grounds of detention, the court found that the principal criminal antecedents cited against Wani related to 2005, 2006 and 2007. It noted that the petitioner had produced acquittal orders in three cases: FIR No. 35/2006, in which he was acquitted on September 16, 2009; FIR No. 82/2007, in which the acquittal was recorded on December 30, 2013; and FIR No. 89/2007, in which he was acquitted on May 13, 2017.
The court clarified that an acquittal does not automatically make the underlying conduct irrelevant to preventive detention proceedings. However, when authorities rely on old incidents that have resulted in acquittals, they must demonstrate how those incidents retain a direct and continuing connection with the need for detention.
In this case, the respondents had failed to provide material showing how incidents from 2005 to 2007 could reasonably justify preventive detention in October 2024, the court observed.
The detention grounds also referred to FIR No. 16/2020, registered at Achabal police station under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, relating to allegations of cheating and criminal conspiracy. The court held that merely citing the registration of a criminal case did not establish a threat to public order.
Distinguishing between law and order and public order, Justice Parihar observed that every criminal offence does not necessarily affect the wider community. For preventive detention to be justified on grounds of public order, the alleged conduct must have an impact, or a reasonably apprehended impact, on the normal life of the community.
The court found no specific circumstances in the detention grounds demonstrating that the allegations in the 2020 case had disrupted public life or were likely to cause such disruption.
It also noted that the detention order, issued on October 24, 2024, had remained unexecuted for a considerable period, with the respondents failing to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. While observing that delayed execution does not invalidate every detention order, the court said an unexplained delay can weaken the connection between the alleged threat and the necessity for preventive detention.
The court further examined the authorities’ objections, which alleged that Wani had engaged in anti-social activities, impersonation, fraudulent dealings and activities involving drugs. It found these assertions general and unsupported by specific particulars establishing their nature, proximity or impact on public order.
The judgment referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima v. State of Manipur and others, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 176, which emphasised the need for a live connection between past conduct and the anticipated threat underlying preventive detention. It also cited a coordinate Bench decision in Zubair Altaf Sheikh v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (HCP No. 304/2025) on the limits of relying on stale criminal antecedents.
The High Court reiterated that preventive detention is intended to prevent anticipated prejudicial activities, not punish past conduct, and that the power must be exercised in accordance with constitutional protections for personal liberty.
Concluding that the material did not establish the requisite connection between Wani’s alleged activities and the necessity for detention, the court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Anantnag, on October 24, 2024.
