The Court held that the challenge to the detention order lacked merit, rejected the plea that the grounds were stale, and observed that no illegality or impropriety was found in the preventive detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Pulwama.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by Jahangir Ahmad Parray against his preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.
Justice M. A. Chowdhary delivered the judgment on May 11, 2026, in HCP No. 289/2025, titled Jahangir Ahmad Parray v. Union Territory of J&K through Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department & Anr.
The Court had reserved the matter on April 30, 2026.
Advocate M. Ashraf Wani appeared for the petitioner. Government Advocate Furqan Yaqub Sofi represented the respondents.
Challenge To Detention Order
The petitioner challenged Detention Order No. 31/DMP/PSA/25 dated May 7, 2025.
The District Magistrate, Pulwama had passed the order under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.
The authority ordered preventive detention to stop the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State.
The petitioner argued that the authorities failed to follow constitutional and statutory safeguards.
He claimed that the grounds of detention were vague and contained only general allegations. Therefore, according to him, he could not make an effective representation.
He also argued that the authorities did not supply the documents relied upon for detention.
Further, he submitted that the Government did not consider the representation made through his father.
He also contended that the detention rested on stale grounds.
State Opposed The Petition
The District Magistrate, Pulwama, filed a counter affidavit and opposed the petition.
The respondents argued that detention under the Public Safety Act has a preventive purpose.
They submitted that the law aims to stop a person from carrying out activities prejudicial to the security of the State or public order.
The State also claimed that sufficient material existed against the detenue.
According to the respondents, ordinary criminal law was not enough to prevent him from continuing alleged anti-national activities.
They further submitted that the detenue was highly motivated and was unlikely to stop such activities.
Court Examined Detention Record
The Court examined the detention record produced by the respondents.
The record showed that the detenue had earlier faced arrest in FIR No. 03/2020 registered at Police Station Awantipora.
That FIR involved offences under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The record also showed his involvement in FIR No. 04/2021 registered at Police Station Tral.
That case involved Section 506 IPC and Sections 13, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the UA(P) Act.
According to the record, the competent court later granted him bail. However, the authorities alleged that he continued his activities after release.
Therefore, the detaining authority invoked the Public Safety Act.
Court On Personal Liberty And Preventive Detention
The Court observed that personal liberty is a precious constitutional right.
It noted that the State cannot deprive a person of liberty except through a procedure established by law.
The Court referred to Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 and observed that such procedure must be just and fair.
However, the Court also noted that Article 22(5) of the Constitution permits preventive detention in appropriate cases.
It observed that preventive detention may apply where the authorities need to protect society from activities that may endanger public life and liberty.
Allegations In Grounds Of Detention
The Court noted the allegations recorded in the grounds of detention.
According to the grounds, the petitioner was allegedly working as an OGW of banned terrorist organisations Hizbul Mujahedeen (HM) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM).
The grounds alleged that he helped terrorists by providing shelter, food, clothing and vital information.
The Court also recorded the allegation that the detenue had pasted posters of HM in Gulshanpora and Seer Jageer.
Those posters allegedly asked people in the area to assist the organisation.
The detention record also referred to earlier proceedings against him under Section 107 read with Section 151 CrPC.
According to the record, authorities apprehended him on 06.01.2023, 15.07.2023, 04.11.2023, 23.01.2024 and 01.03.2024 for alleged involvement in disturbing peace and tranquillity in the area.
Court Rejects Non-Supply Of Material Argument
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that he did not receive the material required to make an effective representation.
It noted from the record that the authorities informed the detenue about his right to make a representation.
The record showed that he could make a representation before the detaining authority and the Government.
The Court also noted that SI Nisar Ahmad of Police Station Tral executed the detention warrant.
The authorities supplied copies of the detention order, notice of detention, grounds of detention, dossier and other relevant documents against proper receipt.
Further, the Court recorded that the authorities read over and explained the detention warrant and grounds of detention to the detenue in Urdu/Kashmiri.
The Court noted that the detenue understood the contents and signed the receipt.
Court Refers To Preventive Detention Precedents
The Court relied on the Constitution Bench decision in The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya, AIR 1951 SC 157.
It observed that courts have a limited role while reviewing the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
The Court held that it would not act as an appellate court while examining the material relied upon by the detaining authority.
It also stated that it would not interfere merely because another view was possible.
The Court further referred to Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 1143, Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India & Ors., 2005 (8) SCC 276, and Union of India and another v. Dimple Happy Dhakad, AIR 2019 SC 3428.
The Court reiterated that preventive detention is not punitive, curative or reformative.
Rather, it aims to prevent a person from carrying out prejudicial activities.
Stale Grounds Argument Rejected
The Court also rejected the argument that the detention rested on stale grounds.
It observed that the petitioner allegedly remained involved in subversive activities from 2020 to 2024.
The Court noted the allegation that he continued to work for terrorist organisations in a manner prejudicial to the security of Jammu & Kashmir.
It also noted the allegation that he stayed in touch with pro-Pakistan terrorist organisations such as HM and JeM.
Petition Dismissed
The Court held that it found no illegality or impropriety in the detention order.
Accordingly, it dismissed the habeas corpus petition along with pending applications.
The Court upheld the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Pulwama.
It also directed the respondents to return the scanned record produced before the Court.
