J&K And Ladakh High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Continuation of Public Safety Act After Reorganisation Of State Into UT

The Court rejected the contention that the adaptation of the Public Safety Act could only have been carried out through Parliamentary legislation and held that Parliament itself had consciously created a statutory mechanism permitting such adaptations and modifications by the Central Government.

The Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition challenging a preventive detention order passed under Section 8(a) of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, against the detenue, who was alleged to be an Over Ground Worker affiliated with Lashkar-e-Taiba. Among other grounds, the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of the adapted provisions of the Public Safety Act after the reorganisation of Jammu & Kashmir into a Union Territory.

A Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed: “…the continuance of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, after reorganisation does not arise from any executive action, but directly from Parliamentary mandate embodied in the Reorganisation Act itself. The continuance of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, after reorganisation is not the result of any executive exercise of power, but the Parliament itself, through the Reorganisation Act, allowed it to remain in force”.

“It is in exercise of this statutory authority that S.O. 1229(E) dated 31.03.2020 came to be issued, whereby references to ‘State’ in the Public Safety Act were substituted with 'Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir”, … the argument that only Parliament could carry out such substitution overlooks the fact that Parliament itself, by virtue of Section 96 of the Reorganisation Act, delegated such limited power of adaptation to the Central Government. Once the parent law itself gives such power, the action taken under it cannot be said to be outside the statute or unconstitutional”, the Bench added.

Senior Advocate S.T. Hussain, along with Advocate Nida Nazir, appeared for the petitioner. Deputy Advocate General Hakim Aman Ali appeared for the respondents.

Background

The detention order was passed by the District Magistrate, Baramulla, under Section 8(a) of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. According to the detention record, the detenue was alleged to be an active Over Ground Worker affiliated with the banned terrorist organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba and accused of providing logistical support, shelter, transportation and assistance to terrorists operating in Sopore and adjoining areas.

The petitioner challenged the detention order on multiple grounds, including alleged non-application of mind, verbatim reproduction of the police dossier, non-supply of material, vagueness of allegations and pendency of ordinary criminal proceedings.

The petitioner also raised a constitutional challenge to the continued operation and adaptation of the Public Safety Act after the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019. It was argued that the expression “security of the State” in the PSA could not have been substituted with “security of the Union Territory” except through Parliamentary legislation and that the adaptation carried out by executive notification was unconstitutional.

The respondents opposed the challenge and relied upon Sections 95 and 96 of the Reorganisation Act as well as S.O. 1229(E) dated 31.03.2020 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, adapting the PSA for application to the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.

Court’s Observation

At the outset, the High Court reiterated the settled principles governing judicial review of preventive detention orders. The Court observed that while preventive detention constitutes a serious encroachment upon personal liberty under Article 21, the Constitution itself recognises preventive detention as a necessary measure in exceptional situations involving security of the State and maintenance of public order.

The Bench observed that courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 do not sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, and judicial review remains confined to examining procedural legality, existence of relevant material and compliance with constitutional safeguards.

While dealing with the challenge to the adaptation of the PSA, the Court extensively analysed Sections 95 and 96 of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.

The Bench observed: “A careful reading of Sections 95 and 96 of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 makes it abundantly clear that Parliament itself, while enacting the Reorganisation Act, consciously provided a complete statutory mechanism not only for continuation of the existing laws applicable to the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir, but also for their adaptation and modification so as to facilitate their applicability to the successor Union Territories.”

The Court noted that Section 95 expressly preserved the operation of laws applicable to the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir and declared that such laws would continue to apply to the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and the Union Territory of Ladakh.

Referring to Section 96, the Bench held that Parliament had expressly delegated limited adaptation powers to the Central Government to remove inconsistencies and align pre-existing laws with the altered constitutional and administrative framework following reorganisation.

The Court reproduced Section 96 and emphasised that the provision specifically authorises adaptations and modifications “whether by way of repeal or amendment.”

The Bench observed: “Once the parent law itself gives such power, the action taken under it cannot be said to be outside the statute or unconstitutional.”

The Court held that the adaptation carried out through S.O. 1229(E) dated 31.03.2020 merely substituted references to “State” with “Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir” and did not alter the nature, object or policy of the Public Safety Act.

The Bench observed: “The replacement of the word ‘State’ with ‘Union Territory’ is only a consequential change made because of the reorganisation of 2019. The purpose and operation of the law remain the same.”

The Court further held that accepting the petitioner’s argument would render every adaptation and modification carried out pursuant to the Reorganisation Act vulnerable despite Parliament having expressly sanctioned such exercise under Section 96. The Bench observed: “Such interpretation would defeat the very scheme and object of the Reorganisation Act.”

The Court consequently held that the adaptation of the PSA was carried out “strictly within the four corners of the statutory authority conferred by Parliament” and did not suffer from any constitutional infirmity.

The High Court also rejected the petitioner’s challenge regarding approval of the detention order under Section 8(4) of the PSA and alleged violation of Rule 33 of the Transaction of Government Business Rules.

The Court held that the approval order had been issued “By order of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir” within the statutory period and no prejudice had been shown to have been caused to the detenue.

The Bench further rejected the contention that the detention order was merely a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier. Referring to Waseem Ahmad Dar v. UT of J&K (2025 SCC Online J&K 1213), the Court reiterated that similarity in language between the dossier and grounds of detention cannot by itself establish non-application of mind.

The Court observed that the detention record revealed consideration of FIR No. 203/2018, preventive proceedings under CrPC and BNSS, intelligence inputs regarding continuing association with Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives, alleged use of encrypted communication applications and contacts with Pakistan-based handlers.

The Bench also held that the detenue had been supplied all relevant material, informed of his right to make a representation and had in fact exercised such right by submitting a representation which was duly considered and rejected.

Referring to Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal (1975) and Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India (2005), the Court reiterated the distinction between punitive detention and preventive detention and observed that preventive detention is intended to prevent future prejudicial acts and not merely punish past conduct.

Conclusion

The High Court held that the adaptation of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, after the enactment of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, was constitutionally valid and carried out strictly within the statutory framework created by Parliament under Sections 95 and 96 of the Reorganisation Act.

The Court further held that the detention order did not suffer from any procedural illegality, mala fide, perversity or constitutional infirmity warranting interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition challenging the detention order was dismissed.

Cause Title: Tanveer Ahmad Mir v. Union Territory of J&K (Neutral Citation: 2026:JKLHC-SR:1587)

Click here to read/download Judgment