SRINAGAR: In a significant ruling reinforcing procedural safeguards in preventive detention cases, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the detention of a Srinagar man booked under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), holding that the authorities failed to place the complete detention record before the court, making his continued incarceration legally unsustainable.
Justice Rahul Bharti, while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Mudasir Ahmad Mir through his wife, Kulsuma, ordered his immediate release from jail, observing that a constitutional court cannot legitimise preventive detention when the government itself fails to produce the documents authorising the continued custody of the detenue.
Mir had challenged the detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, on December 3, 2024, under the Public Safety Act after the Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar, submitted a dossier seeking his preventive detention on the ground that he posed a threat to the security of the State.
According to the grounds of detention, the authorities alleged that Mir had been influenced by radical ideology from an early age and had established contacts with active terrorists and overground workers (OGWs) of The Resistance Front (TRF). He was accused of providing logistical support to the outfit and was also linked to FIR No. 127/2022 registered at Police Station Parimpora. The detention dossier further alleged that during the 2024 Assembly elections, he had formed a group to disrupt the electoral process, following which he was bound down under provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The petitioner, however, argued that the police dossier had been prepared mechanically without any fresh material and that the District Magistrate had merely endorsed the police version without independently applying his mind, thereby violating his fundamental right to personal liberty.
During the proceedings, the High Court examined the detention records produced by the government and found a crucial gap. While the authorities claimed that the detention had been approved and extended periodically, they failed to produce the latest order extending Mir’s preventive detention.
Calling the omission serious, Justice Bharti observed that authorities dealing with preventive detention are under a “solemn and bounden obligation” to place the entire detention record before the constitutional court with utmost responsibility, diligence and accuracy.
The court also made sharp observations on the functioning of the Home Department, stating that it appeared to treat the production of detention records before the High Court as a mere procedural formality. The judgment said senior officials must first verify that the entire detention record is complete before forwarding it to the court, particularly because the High Court is constitutionally entrusted with protecting the personal liberty of citizens, whether they are undertrials, detenues or free citizens.
“In view of the act of omission or commission on the part of the respondents in maintaining proper documentation relating to the preventive detention of the petitioner, this Court is of the firm view that further preventive detention custody of the petitioner cannot be legitimized,” Justice Bharti held.
The court consequently quashed the preventive detention order and directed the Superintendent of the concerned jail to release Mir immediately, unless he was required in connection with any other case. The detention records were ordered to be returned to the respondents’ counsel after disposal of the petition.
The ruling is likely to have wider significance for preventive detention cases under the Public Safety Act, as it reiterates that strict adherence to procedural safeguards and proper maintenance of detention records are indispensable to sustaining such detentions before constitutional courts.
