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 the authorities’ unexplained delay of more than two years in executing the order had snapped the required “live and proximate link” between his alleged past activities and the need for detention.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri allowed a petition filed by Kaiser Hameed Beigh challenging the detention order dated June 25, 2022, which had been passed on the grounds of alleged links with the banned Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) outfit.
In a judgment dated October 1, 2026, the court held that the detention order was based on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds and had been issued for an improper purpose. It observed that the case fell within the limited grounds on which a detention order can be challenged before its execution.
The court noted that Beigh had been accused of acting as an overground worker (OGW) for JeM and allegedly providing shelter and transportation to militants operating in the Valley, particularly in Anantnag district.
According to the case records, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Anantnag, submitted a dossier to the District Magistrate on June 23, 2022, recommending preventive detention. The recommendation cited apprehensions about the petitioner’s alleged association with militants ahead of the annual Shri Amarnath Yatra.
The detention authority subsequently issued the order on June 25, 2022, stating that preventive custody was necessary to prevent activities prejudicial to the security of the State.
Beigh had earlier been detained under the PSA through an order dated October 19, 2021, in connection with FIR No. 132/2019 registered under Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. That detention order was later quashed by the High Court, following which he was released.
Challenging the subsequent detention order, Beigh argued that the allegations against him were vague and that no fresh activities had been attributed to him after his release. He also contended that the authorities had failed to justify the need for detention several years after the alleged incidents.
The petitioner further argued that the authorities had made no serious effort to execute the order despite his availability and regular appearance before the trial court in the case registered against him.
The Union Territory administration opposed the petition, maintaining that the detention order had been passed after consideration of the police dossier and relevant material. It submitted that the petitioner had allegedly continued to be involved in activities prejudicial to the security of the State and that the required documents and grounds of detention had been supplied and explained to him.
Examining the rival submissions and the detention record, Justice Sekhri referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Additional Secretary to the Government of India v. Alka Subash Gadia, which recognises limited circumstances in which a detention order may be challenged before it is executed.
These include cases where an order has been passed against the wrong person, for an improper purpose, on vague or irrelevant grounds, or by an unauthorised authority.
The High Court observed that the detention order in Beigh’s case rested primarily on apprehensions linked to the approaching Amarnath Yatra, while the petitioner was admittedly attending proceedings before the Additional Sessions Judge, Anantnag, designated as the NIA Court, in the single FIR cited against him.
The court found that the circumstances brought the case within the recognised grounds for judicial intervention at the pre-execution stage.
It also emphasised that preventive detention must be supported by a continuing and immediate connection between a person’s past conduct and the present necessity for detention. This principle, known as the “live and proximate link”, requires the authorities to demonstrate why earlier alleged activities justify preventive custody at the time the order is sought to be enforced.
The detention order had been issued on June 25, 2022, while Beigh approached the High Court on September 9, 2024. The court noted that, despite his regular attendance at trial proceedings, the authorities had made no serious effort to execute the order for more than two years.
Justice Sekhri held that the unexplained delay had severed the necessary link between the alleged past activities and the asserted need for detention. Finding that the order could not be sustained in law, the court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order.
The judgment was delivered in Srinagar on October 1, 2026, and marked reportable.
