HC upholds PSA detention of Budgam man, rejects challenge to procedural safeguards

22/08/2026

SRINAGAR, Aug 21: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the preventive detention of a Budgam resident under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, holding that the detention order was based on cogent and relevant material and that the mandatory constitutional and statutory safeguards had been complied with.
Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed HCP No. 116/2025 filed by Shakeel Ahmad Wani, challenging detention Order No. DMB/PSA/07 of 2025 dated April 28, 2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Budgam. The judgment was pronounced on August 20, 2026.
The petitioner was represented by Tawheed Ahmad Sofi, Advocate, while the respondents, including the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, District Magistrate, Budgam and Senior Superintendent of Police, Budgam, were represented by Bikramdeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General.
The detention order had been passed with a view to preventing Wani from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. He was lodged in District Jail, Bhaderwah.
The principal challenge before the High Court was that the detaining authority had allegedly relied solely on the dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Budgam, and had failed to supply the detention order, grounds of detention and supporting material in a manner that enabled the detenu to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
It was also contended that the grounds of detention were vague and uncertain and that the grounds and supporting material had neither been explained nor supplied in Urdu or Kashmiri, the languages understood by the detenu. The petitioner further argued that the fact that he had been granted bail in the FIRs forming the foundation of the detention had not been properly considered.
The respondents opposed the petition, maintaining that all constitutional and statutory safeguards had been complied with. They stated that the detention order, grounds and supporting material had been furnished within the prescribed period, that the contents had been read over and explained to the detenu in a language understood by him and that he had signed the execution report acknowledging receipt.
The authorities also maintained that the District Magistrate had independently considered the material and arrived at the requisite subjective satisfaction that preventive detention was necessary to prevent activities prejudicial to the security of the State.
After examining the detention record, Justice Azeem noted that the detention order was passed on April 28, 2025 and that the grounds of detention were communicated to the detenu on the same day. The execution report dated May 1, 2025 recorded that the detention order, grounds and other supporting documents had been supplied to him against proper receipt.
The record further showed that the contents of the detention warrant, grounds of detention and other documents were read over to the detenu in Kashmiri and Urdu. A certificate issued by the executing police officer and attested by two witnesses recorded that the material had been explained to him in a language he fully understood. Translated copies of the grounds of detention and police dossier were also stated to have been supplied, with the detenu acknowledging their receipt in writing.
The court also took note of the fact that the detention was placed before the Advisory Board, which confirmed it after considering the material. The Government subsequently confirmed the detention order under Section 17(1) of the Public Safety Act.
On the merits of the detention, the High Court noted that the material placed before the detaining authority disclosed the petitioner's alleged involvement in FIR No. 225/2020, in which he was stated to have been involved as an Over Ground Worker for the banned terrorist organisation Lashkar-e-Toiba.
The court further recorded that the material relied upon by the authorities indicated his alleged involvement in activities including dissemination of anti-national sentiments, sharing information regarding the movement of security forces and police, and providing logistical support, including food, shelter, clothing and transport, to terrorists.
The judgment also noted that the detenu had allegedly been taken into preventive custody on repeated occasions under Sections 126 and 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in 2025 and released on bonds to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. According to the material considered by the court, there was continued allegiance to banned terrorist organisations and alleged involvement in secessionist activities, including conspiracy to carry out attacks.
Rejecting the contention that the availability of ordinary criminal law precluded preventive detention, the court relied upon Supreme Court judgments explaining the distinct nature of preventive detention.
Referring to Sasti alias Satish Chowdhary v. State of West Bengal, the court noted that the mere fact that an act constitutes an offence under penal law does not prevent the detaining authority from passing an order of preventive detention where the grounds are germane to the statutory purpose.
The court also referred to Mohd. Salim Khan v. Shri C.C. Bose & Anr., observing that the discharge of a detenu in a criminal case relating to an incident does not, by itself, render a preventive detention order incompetent.
The judgment further relied upon the Supreme Court's exposition in Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal & Ors., concerning the distinction between preventive and punitive detention.
Justice Azeem observed that preventive detention is a precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation and need not necessarily relate to an offence. The court held that the orders passed under Sections 126 and 170 of the BNSS immediately preceding the impugned detention order furnished a live and proximate link with the activities alleged to be prejudicial to the security of the State.
The High Court concluded that the detaining authority had derived its subjective satisfaction from cogent and relevant material and that the grounds of detention were specific, proximate and had a live link with the alleged prejudicial activities.
It further found no procedural infirmity in the service of documents, consideration of the representation or proceedings before the Advisory Board.
The court also reiterated that in preventive detention matters, constitutional courts do not sit as appellate authorities. Where a detention order is based on relevant material and the prescribed procedural safeguards have been satisfied, the court does not substitute its own opinion for that of the detaining authority.
Finding no violation of constitutional or statutory provisions and no ground for interference, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned detention order.
The court directed that the detention record be returned to counsel for the respondents.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty