SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed the preventive detention of a Rajouri man under the Public Safety Act (PSA), ruling that the authorities had failed to inform him of his constitutional right to submit a representation against his detention to the District Magistrate who had issued the order.
Directing his immediate release from District Jail, Poonch, the court held that the omission amounted to a violation of procedural safeguards governing preventive detention, which directly affects a person’s fundamental right to personal liberty.
Justice Rahul Bharti passed the judgment on October 23, 2026, while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Shakoor Ahmed, 39, through his brother Manzoor Ahmed. The judgment was uploaded on October 27.
The court set aside detention order No. DMR/PSA/05 of 2026, dated July 11, along with the subsequent approval, confirmation and extension orders issued by the authorities.
The case originated from a dossier submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Rajouri, to the District Magistrate on June 11, 2026. The police had alleged that Ahmed’s activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and sought his preventive detention.
The District Magistrate took nearly a month to consider the dossier and subsequently ordered his detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. Ahmed was taken into custody on July 13 and lodged in District Jail, Poonch.
The detention order cited his alleged activities and criminal antecedents in three cases: FIR No. 101/2020, registered under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act at Police Station Thanamandi; FIR No. 165/2022 under Section 188 IPC at Police Station Rajouri; and FIR No. 75/2025 under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, at Police Station Thanamandi.
Challenging the detention, the petitioner’s counsel, senior advocate Muzaffar Iqbal Khan, assisted by advocate Mazher Ali Khan, argued that the District Magistrate had failed to communicate an essential constitutional safeguard to the detenue.
The counsel pointed out that the notice accompanying the detention order informed Ahmed only of his right to submit a representation to the Government, but did not tell him that he could also approach the District Magistrate, the authority that had passed the detention order.
The court examined the notice dated July 11, 2026, and the receipt obtained by Sub-Inspector Zakir Hussain of the District Police Lines, Rajouri, when the detention warrant was executed. The record showed that Ahmed had been provided with a compilation of 82 pages containing the detention warrant, grounds of detention, notice, police dossier and other relevant documents. The contents of the documents had also been explained to him.
However, the notice and the material supplied to him did not inform him of his right to make a representation to the District Magistrate.
The State was represented by Deputy Advocate General Dewakar Sharma, who appeared for the respondents.
The court also examined the subsequent confirmation of Ahmed’s detention through Government Order No. Home/PB-V/955 of 2026, dated August 6, issued following the Advisory Board’s opinion of July 29, which had found the detention justified.
Taking serious exception to the manner in which the matter had been examined, Justice Bharti questioned how the Advisory Board had failed to notice the omission in the detention record. The Board had recorded that no representation had been received from the detenue, a finding which the court said was correct only in relation to a representation to the Government, since Ahmed had never been informed of his right to approach the District Magistrate.
Emphasising the importance of procedural safeguards in preventive detention cases, the court observed that it was not for the detenue to establish the prejudice caused by being deprived of the opportunity to make a representation to the detention authority.
“When it is a matter of loss of fundamental right to personal liberty, doctrine of prejudice is not meant to be confronted to a person suffering the loss of fundamental right to personal liberty,” the judgment stated.
The court further stressed that proceedings under the Public Safety Act were strictly governed by procedural requirements and left no room for lapses by the authorities responsible for initiating, ordering, approving and confirming detention.
It also underscored the responsibility of the Advisory Board, observing that it was expected to act as a safeguard against procedural irregularities rather than merely endorse detention cases forwarded by the Government.
“The purpose of Advisory Board is that of filtration,” the court observed, adding that it was concerned that the Board was being treated as “a free passage for the detention orders to arrive on the table of detention order confirmation authority”.
Holding that the failure to inform Ahmed of his right to make a representation to the District Magistrate vitiated the detention proceedings, the court quashed the original detention order and all consequential approval, confirmation and extension orders.
The Superintendent of District Jail, Poonch, was directed to release Ahmed forthwith.
The habeas corpus petition was accordingly disposed of.
