SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the preventive detention of a Kupwara man, holding that the grounds cited against him were vague and lacked material particulars necessary for him to effectively challenge his detention.
Justice Sanjay Dhar passed the judgment on August 29 while hearing a petition filed by Ab. Qadoos Rather, challenging detention order No. 04-DMK/PSA of 2025 dated April 29, 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Kupwara.
Under the order, Rather had been placed under preventive detention under the J&K Public Safety Act (PSA) on the ground that his activities were allegedly detrimental to the security of Jammu and Kashmir.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued that the detention order was based on vague and stale grounds and that the authorities had failed to comply with mandatory procedural safeguards. It was also submitted that the entire material relied upon for passing the detention order had not been supplied to the detenue and that his representation against the detention had not been properly considered.
The government opposed the petition, maintaining that all statutory requirements and constitutional safeguards had been complied with. It submitted that the detention order, grounds of detention and supporting material had been handed over to the detenue and explained to him, besides informing him of his right to make a representation.
However, the court found substance in the petitioner’s main contention that the grounds of detention were vague and lacked material particulars.
The grounds described Rather as an alleged over-ground worker of Lashkar-e-Taiba and accused him of aiding and abetting activities attributed to the outfit. They also alleged that he had again indulged in “subversive activities” based on reports received from agencies.
The court noted that the grounds did not disclose the places where the alleged activities took place, the identity of the persons whom the petitioner was allegedly aiding, or the period during which such assistance was allegedly provided.
Similarly, no details or time period relating to the alleged “subversive activities” were mentioned in the detention grounds.
“Thus, the grounds, being vague lacking in material particulars, the detenue could not have made an effective representation against his detention,” the court observed.
Justice Dhar referred to Article 22(5) of the Constitution, observing that grounds of detention must be individually specified and cannot be vague, indefinite or general. Such particulars, the court said, are necessary to enable a detenue to understand the allegations and effectively challenge the detention.
The court also relied upon a recent Division Bench judgment in Imran Rashid Rather vs UT of J&K, observing that vague and non-specific grounds can violate the fundamental rights to life and personal liberty and prevent a detenue from making a specific rebuttal to the allegations.
“Vagueness of grounds of detention strikes at the root of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority thereby vitiating the order of detention,” Justice Dhar held.
Allowing the petition, the court quashed the detention order and directed the respondents to release Rather from preventive custody forthwith, provided he was not required in connection with any other case.
The judgment was pronounced on August 29, 2026.
