SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has upheld the preventive detention of a Budgam resident booked under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), observing that the detention was necessary to prevent activities prejudicial to the security of the State.
The judgment was delivered on April 29, 2026 by Justice MA Chowdhary in HCP No. 8/2025 titled Mohammad Ashraf Sheikh vs Union Territory of JK and Others. The matter had been reserved for judgment on April 24, 2026, while the full judgment was uploaded on April 30, 2026.
The petitioner, Mohammad Ashraf Sheikh, son of Late Wali Mohammad Sheikh and a resident of Kawoosa Khalisa in Budgam district, had challenged Detention Order No. DMB/PSA/11 of 2024 dated November 23, 2024, issued by the District Magistrate, Budgam under Section 8 of the JK Public Safety Act, 1978.
Advocates Adil Pandit and Nida Nazir appeared for the petitioner, while Deputy Advocate General Bikramdeep Singh represented the respondents, including the Union Territory administration, District Magistrate Budgam and Superintendent District Jail Bhaderwah.
In his plea, the detenue argued that the PSA detention was based on “false and flimsy grounds” and that the allegations against him were vague. He also contended that he had not been supplied all the material relied upon by the detaining authority, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to make an effective representation against his detention.
The petitioner further claimed that the detention order relied on stale grounds and was therefore legally unsustainable.
However, the court rejected these arguments after examining the detention record and the grounds of detention.
According to the judgment, the detenue had earlier been arrested in FIR No. 35/2022 registered at Police Station Beerwah under provisions of the Arms Act and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act after security forces allegedly recovered a Chinese pistol, ammunition, magazines and Lashkar-e-Taiba posters during a search operation conducted jointly by SOG Hardupanzoo and Army personnel in April 2022.
The court noted that after securing bail in the case in November 2022, the detenue allegedly continued to engage in anti-national activities and was repeatedly subjected to preventive proceedings under Sections 107/151 CrPC, now corresponding to Sections 126/170 BNSS.
The judgment further referred to another FIR registered against the petitioner in 2024 at Police Station Magam under Sections 447, 323 and 354 IPC relating to alleged trespass and assault on a woman in Narbal.
The court observed that the detenue was allegedly working as an overground worker (OGW) for the proscribed militant outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and was attempting to instigate local youth toward subversive activities.
Rejecting the petition, the High Court held: “Viewed from any angle, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of detention. The grounds of detention, on the basis of which impugned order came to be passed, are found definite and unambiguous.”
The court also reiterated the settled legal position that preventive detention is preventive and not punitive in nature.
Quoting from the judgment, Justice Chowdhary observed: “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 relied extensively on Supreme Court precedents, including State of Bombay vs Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya, Ashok Kumar vs Delhi Administration, Naresh Kumar Goyal vs Union of India and Union of India vs Dimple Happy Dhakad, while explaining the limited scope of judicial review in preventive detention matters.
The High Court ultimately dismissed the habeas corpus petition and upheld the PSA detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Budgam.
