SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has quashed the preventive detention of a Srinagar resident under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, holding that the material relied upon by the authorities failed to establish a “live and proximate link” between his past conduct and the necessity for detention in 2025. The court also found that the authorities had failed to supply the detenue with Beat Books/Patrol Books relied upon in arriving at the detention decision, thereby impairing his constitutional right to make an effective representation.
Justice M. A. Chowdhary, who heard the habeas corpus petition, directed the respondents to release Zubair Altaf Sheikh, a resident of 90-Feet Soura in Srinagar, “forthwith from preventive detention” if his custody was not required in connection with any other case. The judgment was reserved on September 14 and pronounced on September 17, 2026.
Sheikh, through his wife Nafeeza Zubair, had challenged detention Order No. DMS/PSA/40/2025 dated September 12, 2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Srinagar under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The order had placed him under preventive detention with the stated objective of preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the “security of the State”.
Advocate S. R. Hussain appeared for Sheikh, while Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadri, assisted by counsel Haris Khan, represented the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the District Magistrate, Srinagar, and the Superintendent of Central Jail, Jammu.
The petitioner challenged the detention on several grounds, including non-application of mind, reliance on stale and irrelevant material, non-supply of material relied upon by the detaining authority, vagueness in the grounds of detention and failure to provide an effective opportunity to make a representation against the order.
At the centre of the challenge was FIR No. 15/2022 registered at Police Station Bemina under various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. Sheikh had been arrested in that case and was granted bail on September 26, 2022. Four days later, on September 30, 2022, a PSA detention order was passed against him. That earlier detention order was challenged before the High Court in WP(Crl) No. 707/2022 and was ultimately quashed by the court on April 3, 2024.
The petitioner argued that despite the earlier detention order having been quashed, the same 2022 FIR had again been relied upon for the 2025 detention. The incident underlying the FIR, he contended, was nearly three years old and lacked the necessary proximity to justify preventive detention in 2025. The petitioner also asserted that Sheikh had been working as a Store Manager with Blinkit Commerce Private Limited in Gurugram, in the Delhi-NCR region, an assertion which the court noted had remained unrebutted.
Advocate Hussain further drew the court’s attention to Beat Books/Patrol Books dated May 21, June 4 and August 4, 2025. According to the petitioner, these documents constituted material relied upon by the authorities but had not been supplied to Sheikh. Their withholding, he argued, had seriously impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation. He also contended that allegations describing Sheikh as an “OGW” and accusing him of motivating youth to join separatist groups were general and vague, since no particular incident, date, place, person or specific activity had been identified.
The respondents opposed the petition, maintaining that the 2025 detention order was not founded merely on the 2022 FIR. The government argued that the earlier PSA order had been quashed in 2024, whereas the present detention was based on a fresh dossier containing additional material and fresh inputs from discreet sources. According to the respondents, the dossier had been prepared and submitted on August 8, 2025, following which the material collected was considered by the competent authorities. They submitted that discreet information indicated Sheikh’s involvement in activities aimed at motivating youth to join separatist groups, which, they argued, constituted a serious threat to the security of the State. The government also maintained that the 2022 FIR had been included only to place his antecedents before the detaining authority and was not the sole basis for the detention.
The High Court, however, found that the fresh material did not sufficiently overcome the problem posed by the passage of time. Referring to Supreme Court decisions including Sama Aruna v. State of Telangana, Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of Telangana and Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura, the court reiterated that preventive detention requires a “live and proximate link” between the alleged prejudicial conduct and the necessity for detention.
The court noted that the 2022 FIR related to an incident from that year, while the new detention order was passed in 2025, with the dossier submitted on August 8, 2025. Although the court accepted that quashing of an earlier detention order does not by itself prevent authorities from passing a subsequent order on the basis of genuinely fresh material, it stressed that such a subsequent order “must stand on its own legs” and must demonstrate a live and proximate nexus between the alleged prejudicial activity and the imperative necessity of detention.
Examining the fresh allegations, the court found that the assertion that Sheikh was an over-ground worker, or “OGW”, of banned outfits Lashkar-e-Taiba and The Resistance Front and had been motivating youth to join separatist groups remained “substantially general in character”. The judgment said the grounds did not identify with sufficient specificity the alleged acts, dates and places of the activities, the persons allegedly motivated by him, or other concrete circumstances showing continuing involvement.
“A mere description of a person by a particular label, without particulars of the acts which constitute the alleged prejudicial conduct, cannot by itself furnish an adequate basis for preventive detention,” Justice Chowdhary observed, adding that the grounds had to be sufficiently specific to enable the detenue to understand and effectively meet the allegations.
The court also took note of Sheikh’s employment in Gurugram. Documents placed before the court showed that he had been working there and had received wages for the period concerning which the discreet reports had been made. The court clarified that employment elsewhere could not by itself disprove allegations of prejudicial activity, but held that it was nevertheless a relevant circumstance that the detaining authority was required to consider when assessing whether there was a continuing and immediate threat warranting preventive detention.
The earlier quashing of Sheikh’s 2022 PSA detention order was another factor the court found significant. The judgment said that the judicial development was a “material circumstance” requiring consideration and that the detaining authority could not “mechanically revive the earlier narrative” without demonstrating how subsequent material had overcome the effect of the passage of time and established a fresh and continuing threat.
On the issue of disclosure of material, the court invoked Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which guarantees a detenue the right to be informed of the grounds of detention and to have the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the order. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India, the court said that where documents are referred to or relied upon in the grounds of detention, the grounds are not complete without those documents and failure to supply them can amount to denial of the constitutional right to make an effective representation.
In Sheikh’s case, the petitioner had specifically identified the Beat Books/Patrol Books dated May 21, June 4 and August 4, 2025 as material relied upon by the authorities but not supplied to him. The respondents, the court said, had not satisfactorily demonstrated either that the documents had not been relied upon or that they had actually been supplied to the detenue.
The court drew a distinction between material merely referred to and material actually relied upon in reaching subjective satisfaction. Where material has influenced the decision and is necessary for the detenue to meet the allegations, the court said, its non-supply “strikes at the very root” of the right guaranteed under Article 22(5). Without the Beat or Patrol Books, the court observed, Sheikh could not effectively verify entries allegedly relating to his movements or activities or controvert the manner in which the material was being used against him.
The court also rejected the respondents’ contention that the 2022 FIR was merely an antecedent. While an antecedent may be referred to for a limited purpose, the judgment held that where it is relied upon to support a conclusion that a detenue continues to pose a threat to the security of the State, it must have a live and proximate nexus with the present necessity for detention.
“Preventive detention cannot become a substitute for ordinary criminal law,” the court said. “Nor can the extraordinary power of preventive detention be exercised merely because the authorities entertain a general apprehension regarding a person’s antecedents.” It added that there must be material from which a rational prognosis of future prejudicial conduct could be made.
After considering the material cumulatively, the court concluded that it did not establish the requisite live and proximate link between Sheikh’s past conduct and the imperative necessity of detaining him in 2025. It further held that the non-supply of the Beat and Patrol Books, which formed part of the relied-upon material, had deprived him of the opportunity to effectively controvert the case against him and amounted to a “substantive infraction of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.”
The court ultimately identified multiple infirmities in the detention order, including reliance on the stale 2022 FIR without demonstrating a sufficient live nexus with detention in 2025; failure to establish specific and contemporaneous prejudicial activities; vague allegations concerning Sheikh’s alleged role as an OGW and his alleged efforts to motivate youth; failure to properly consider his employment in Gurugram; failure to account for the earlier PSA order having been quashed; and non-supply of the Beat and Patrol Books relied upon by the authorities.
Holding that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority could not be sustained in law, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed detention Order No. DMS/PSA/40/2025 dated September 12, 2025. It directed that Sheikh be released forthwith from preventive detention, subject to his custody not being required in any other case.
