HC quashes PSA detention, says preventive custody cannot substitute ordinary law without compelling reasons

30/05/2026

JAMMU, May 29: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the preventive detention of a Kathua man under the Public Safety Act (PSA), observing that preventive detention cannot be invoked as a substitute for ordinary legal measures unless compelling reasons are recorded to show why such proceedings are inadequate.
Allowing a habeas corpus petition, Justice Rajesh Sekhri set aside detention order No. PSA/159 dated May 21, 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Kathua, and directed the immediate release of detenue Saddam Husain, provided he is not required in connection with any other case. The petition challenging the detention under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act was filed through the detenue's father, Mohd. Butt. Saddam Husain is presently lodged in Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu.
According to the detention dossier, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kathua, had described the detenue as an alleged overground worker, facilitator of terrorist activities and sympathiser of banned terrorist organisations. The authorities claimed that his activities were prejudicial to the security of the State and detrimental to peace and public tranquillity.
The detention order was primarily based on an FIR registered in 2019 at Police Station CID CI Jammu and preventive proceedings initiated against him under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Sanchit Verma challenged the detention on several grounds, including non-application of mind, reliance on stale allegations, failure to supply relevant documents, absence of compelling material and violation of the constitutional right to make an effective representation against the detention.
Government Advocate Suneel Malhotra defended the detention order, contending that it had been passed after due consideration of the dossier submitted by the SSP, Kathua, as the detenue allegedly posed a continuing threat to the security of the State.
After examining the detention record, the High Court observed that preventive proceedings under the BNSS and detention under the PSA are distinct legal mechanisms and may co-exist. However, it held that when a person is already facing preventive proceedings under ordinary criminal law, the detaining authority is required to independently assess and record compelling reasons as to why such proceedings are insufficient.
The Court found that neither the sponsoring authority nor the District Magistrate had disclosed any material demonstrating why the preventive proceedings already initiated against the detenue were inadequate to prevent him from engaging in activities allegedly prejudicial to the security of the State.
Emphasising the importance of personal liberty, the Court observed that while maintenance of public order and security falls within the executive domain, constitutional freedoms cannot be curtailed on the basis of mere assertions.
"The Administration cannot be allowed to trample over the liberty of its citizens in an arbitrary and perfunctory fashion," the Court observed, stressing that preventive detention powers must be exercised fairly, reasonably and strictly in accordance with law.
The Court further noted that the detention order stemmed from a solitary FIR registered in 2019, in which the petitioner had already been granted bail by the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, on June 13, 2023.
Referring to the bail order, the Court observed that five prosecution witnesses examined during the trial had not stated that the petitioner was caught red-handed photographing Army installations or other security assets.
Despite this, the detention order and grounds of detention made no reference to the grant of bail or the circumstances in which it had been allowed, the Court said, adding that the omission reflected total non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
The High Court also found fault with the delay in deciding the detenue's representation against the detention. While the representation dated July 24, 2025, was received by the authorities on July 29, it was decided only on September 19 and communicated to the detenue on October 11.
Holding that the unexplained delay of nearly 50 days violated constitutional safeguards, the Court observed that consideration of a representation against preventive detention is not an empty formality and must be dealt with expeditiously because it directly concerns an individual's right to liberty.
Concluding that the detention order was legally unsustainable, the Court quashed the order and directed the immediate release of Saddam Husain from preventive custody unless required in any other case.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty