“Painful & Pinching To Constitutional Sensitivity”: Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order Of Pulwama’s Salesman

The Court remarked that the state authorities had taken a cavalier approach and a lack of administrative vigilance.

The Court observed that the handling of such serious matters involving personal liberty appeared to have been left to "subordinate staff," leading to errors that should never occur.

​The Bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed, “The aforesaid scenario only reflects that there is no one at the end of the respondents bearing alertness and aliveness to the handling of preventive detention cases which seem to be left to be attended to by the subordinate staff at the disposal of Home Department, Govt. of UT of Jammu & Kashmir as well as District Magistracy otherwise it is inconceivable that glaring errors of such nature would have been spared attention and correction at the end of the respective respondents… This Court is holding back its further observations to come to a conclusion that the preventive detention inflicted upon the petitioner is painful and pinching to the very constitutional sensitivity with which preventive detention jurisdiction is supposed to be exercised and carried out.”

Advocates Zamir Abdullah appeared for the Petitioner, while Government Advocate Furqan Yaqoob appeared for the Respondents.

Mudasir Ahmad Bhat, acting through his wife, challenged his preventive detention by filing a writ of habeas corpus. He contested the order issued by the District Magistrate of Pulwama under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, which had resulted in his arrest and ongoing confinement.

The process began when the Senior Superintendent of Police in Pulwama submitted a dossier to the District Magistrate. This report alleged that the petitioner, while working as a salesman, had established contact with anti-national elements and deceased terrorists. The police claimed he acted as an operative for active militants by providing logistical support, monitoring the movements of security forces, and attempting to recruit local youth into insurgent groups.

Before the formal detention, authorities noted that the petitioner was summoned to a police station on multiple occasions. However, the field reports suggested that he continued to support terrorist organizations. The police argued that his activities were highly prejudicial to the security of the region and that he was actively radicalizing others to revive insurgent strength in the area.

Based on these allegations, the District Magistrate expressed subjective satisfaction that detention was necessary and issued the formal order. The petitioner was subsequently arrested and moved to a district jail. During the handover, officials provided him with the detention warrant and supporting documents, asserting that the grounds for his detention were explained to him in languages he understood.

The government later approved the detention and sought an opinion from the Advisory Board, which found the confinement justified. While the petitioner was in custody, he submitted a formal representation seeking his release. The Home Department consulted with intelligence agencies before rejecting his plea, a decision that was later communicated to the petitioner in jail.

As the legal proceedings continued, the government extended the detention period. Throughout this time, the petitioner maintained his challenge against the legal validity of the Magistrate's order and the grounds upon which his liberty was restricted.

The Court said, “It is aforesaid backdrop that this Court has come across with the adjudication of this writ petition when reference made in the very opening para of this judgment about the words of Albert Einstein come into play to expose in broad daylight the situation which can be summed up by observing that the respondents’ right hand not knowing what left hand is doing.”

The Court said that in the Dossier, Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Pulwama has referred to calling of the petitioner by a concerned police station twice under Sections 126 and 170 BNSS, without divulging which police station and the full form of BNSS meaning what, but be that as it may, the Respondent No. 2/ District Magistrate, Pulwama in his grounds of detention refers to two different dates of police station calling the Petitioner under Sections 126 and 170 BNSS and said two dates.

“It has bothered least the application of mind on the part of the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Pulwama to read very draft of his grounds of detention to come across with an error that there was no such calling of the petitioner on 23.02.2025 reported in the dossier of the Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Pulwama”, the Court said.

The Court observed, “Very disturbingly, the respondent No. 3/Superintendent District Jail, Udhampur refers to the lodgment of the petitioner in District Jail, Udhampur with effect from 05.12.2024 under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 by reference to the very impugned order of Respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Pulwama which is Order No. 12/DMP/PSA/25 dated 30.04.2025.”

The Court remarked that it occurred to none i.e. Additional Secretary to Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir, Home Department as well as the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Pulwama to bother their attention and concern by calling upon the respondent No. 3 –Superintendent District Jail, Udhampur as to on what basis he came to reflect the fact of petitioner’s lodgment in Jail.

Accordingly, the Court declared the preventive detention of the petitioner as illegal and quashed the impugned detention Order passed by Respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Pulwama.

Cause Title: Mudasir Ahmad Bhat v. Union Territory of J&K and others [HCP No. 147/2025]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates Zamir Abdullah and Zahir Abdullah

Respondents: Government Advocate Zahir Abdullah

Click here to read/download the Judgment