SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed the preventive detention of a Poonch man under the Public Safety Act, holding that the cases against him involved individual disputes and did not have the potential to disturb public order, and directed his release forthwith if he was not required in any other case.
Justice Sanjay Dhar passed the order on September 18 while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Farida Bi, wife of 49-year-old Mohd Yousuf of Salwah in Mendhar, Poonch. Yousuf had challenged detention order No. DMP/PSA/01 of 2026 dated April 27, issued by the District Magistrate, Poonch, under which he was placed in preventive detention to prevent him from acting in a manner allegedly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The court found that the District Magistrate had failed to properly distinguish between “public order” and “law and order” while passing the detention order. It observed that the existing criminal law framework was sufficient to deal with the offences attributed to Yousuf and that the extraordinary power of preventive detention could not be invoked merely because the allegations raised a law-and-order issue.
“The preventive detention is an extraordinary power which can be used only to tackle emergent situation, and it cannot be invoked in a situation which gives rise to a ‘law and order’ problem,” Justice Dhar observed. The court further held that the detaining authority “has failed to appreciate the difference between ‘public order’ and ‘law and order’.”
The petitioner’s case was argued by Senior Advocate C.M. Koul, assisted by Advocate A.R. Bhat, while Deputy Advocate General Dewakar Sharma represented the respondents, including the Union Territory administration, District Magistrate Poonch, Senior Superintendent of Police Poonch and the district Screening Committee.
The petitioner had challenged the detention on several grounds, primarily arguing that the allegations contained in the grounds of detention, even if accepted at face value, did not constitute a threat to public order. His counsel contended that the incidents could, at most, constitute issues of law and order and therefore could not provide a lawful basis for preventive detention.
It was also argued that the detention order reflected non-application of mind because the grounds of detention were identical to the material contained in the dossier submitted by the SSP, Poonch. The petitioner further claimed that he had not been provided translated versions of the relied-upon material, which prevented him from making an effective representation, and that his representation against the detention order had not been considered.
The respondents, however, defended the detention, maintaining that Yousuf’s “prejudicial activities” made preventive detention necessary. They submitted that all constitutional and statutory safeguards had been followed and that the detention order was based on his criminal antecedents and the material placed before the detaining authority.
According to the respondents, the District Magistrate had arrived at the requisite subjective satisfaction after considering Yousuf’s continuing activities, and he had been supplied with the material relied upon for framing the grounds of detention and informed of his right to make a representation. The detention record was also produced before the court.
The court examined four FIRs relied upon in the detention order. These included FIR No. 129/2018 registered at Mendhar police station over an incident involving a Panchayat employee; FIR No. 24/2019 concerning an assault on Mohd Adrees Khan; FIR No. 217/2024 relating to a fight during a wedding function; and FIR No. 38/2026 concerning an alleged assault on a group travelling towards Jaba.
The court noted that the 2018 incident arose after a verbal altercation between Yousuf and a Panchayat employee over Panchayat-related work, which escalated into a physical fight. In the 2019 case, the investigation found prior enmity between Yousuf and the injured person, while allegations of snatching and theft were not substantiated.
In the 2024 case, the court said a verbal altercation between the complainant party and the accused during a wedding function escalated into a fight while guests were having meals. Though several offences were found established against Yousuf, the allegation of attempt to murder was not established during investigation.
The fourth case related to an incident of March 11, 2026, in which Yousuf and his associates allegedly assaulted a complainant party while they were travelling towards Jaba carrying luggage. One of the injured persons suffered grievous injuries. The court also noted that the State had already moved for cancellation of Yousuf’s bail in that case.
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s principles governing preventive detention, including its judgment in Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, and held that while courts do not ordinarily examine the sufficiency of material underlying subjective satisfaction, they can examine whether the detaining authority understood and exercised its statutory powers correctly.
Quoting the Supreme Court, the High Court noted that a constitutional court can examine whether the detaining authority applied its mind to relevant circumstances, acted for the purpose authorised by law and whether there was a live and proximate link between past conduct and the need for detention. It also noted that where the exercise of power is found legally flawed, preventive detention, given its “drastic consequences”, can be interdicted.
The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s landmark distinction between “law and order” and “public order”, observing that an act may affect law and order without affecting public order. It quoted the Supreme Court’s description of the three concepts as concentric circles, with law and order forming the largest circle, public order the next, and security of the State the smallest.
Applying those principles to Yousuf’s case, Justice Dhar found that the four incidents were “confined to personal enmity between the petitioner and the complainant party” and were “individualistic in nature”. The court observed that the incidents, spanning from 2018 to 2026, affected private individuals and that their repetition, by itself, did not establish a disturbance of the flow of community life.
“Merely because the detenue has been charged with multiple offences cannot, in isolation, be taken as a basis for passing an order of detention,” the court said, adding that the incidents “do not have the potential to disturb public order.”
In a pointed observation, the court said the incidents were, “in the inimitable words of Justice Rahul Bharti”, a “pain in the neck” for authorities responsible for maintaining law and order, but did not disturb the flow of public life.
The court further noted that the DSP report relied upon by the detaining authority described Yousuf as repeatedly involving himself in crimes and referred to multiple cases against him, but did not provide particulars of those alleged repeated activities.
It also took note of the fact that the State had already sought cancellation of Yousuf’s bail in the 2026 case. The High Court said that without awaiting the outcome of those proceedings, the authorities had proceeded to invoke preventive detention, which, in the circumstances of the case, was “indefensible”.
The court accordingly declared the April 27 detention order “unsustainable in law”, quashed it and directed that Yousuf be released forthwith if he was not involved in any other case. The detention record was ordered to be returned to the counsel for the respondents.
