Jurisdictional Basis For Invoking Preventive Detention Disappears When Authority Admits To Total Cessation Of Activity: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

The High Court found the order to be based on vague, stale, and unsupported material.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal held, “Notably, the respondent's own records, the dossier and grounds of detention concede that the appellant has been 'silent' after 13th September 2023. Once the detaining authority admits to a total cessation of activity, the jurisdictional basis for invoking preventive detention disappears. without a current or proximate threat to security, the detention is arbitrary and legally unsustainable.”

Advocate Asif Ali represented the Appellant,  while Government Advocate Illyas Nazir represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant was detained pursuant to an order issued under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The said detention order was challenged by the appellant by a Habeas Corpus Petition, but the same was dismissed. The appellant assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the alleged last activity attributed to the appellant pertained to the year 2022 in connection with the FIR, in which the appellant was already released owing to the absence of any incriminating evidence against him. As per the appellant, the order of detention was founded on vague and stale grounds.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found that the detention record revealed that a dossier was prepared wherein reference was made to the FIR registered under Sections 120-B and 130 of the IPC and Sections 18 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, with Police Station Anantnag. In the said FIR, the appellant was arrested but subsequently released on his personal bond. The Bench noted that in the grounds of detention, the DM had referred to the FIR, in which the appellant was released owing to insufficiency of evidence.

The Bench held, “While the dossier and the grounds of detention assert that the appellant continued to engage in activities warranting detention following his release; these claims lack specific particulars. The allegations are entirely bald and vague, merely stating that the appellant remained in contact with 'overground workers' without disclosing their identities or the nature of such contact. Furthermore, no material has been placed on record to substantiate these claims. Significantly, Respondent No. 2 failed to specify a single illegal activity attributed to the appellant post-release. Consequently, the detention order is not only founded on vague grounds but also serves as a clear indication of non-application of mind by the detaining authority.”

Reiterating that preventive detention cannot be sustained on the basis of stale, vague, or indefinite allegations, the Bench held, “The detaining authority is under a mandated constitutional obligation to furnish clear, precise, and proximate grounds. This requirement is a prerequisite to enabling the detenu to exercise his/her right to make an 'effective representation,' a fundamental safeguard guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.”

Finding the impugned detention order to be based on vague, stale, and unsupported material, the Bench held that the same could not be sustained. Thus, quashing the order of detention, the Bench ordered the appellant to be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.

Cause Title: Huzaif Ahmad Dar v. Union Territory of J&K (Case No.: LPA No.206/2025)

Click here to read/download Order