Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | HCP/32/2025 of MOHD ABDULLAH GUJJAR @DULLAH TH NOOR DIN Vs UT OF J AND K TH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT JAMMU AND OTHERS |
| CNR | JKHC020007182025 |
| Date of Registration | 13-02-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY |
| Court | High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms strict compliance with Article 22(5) and statutory safeguards under the PSA |
| Type of Law | Constitutional & Administrative |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts when hearing petitions under the PSA or similar preventive detention laws |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court on procedural safeguards under Article 22(5) and fresh grounds requirement |
| Distinguishes | PSA orders that rely on quashed prior orders or stale/acquitted FIRs cannot be sustained |
| Follows | Apex Court precedents on strict construction of preventive detention safeguards (Icchu Devi Choraria, C. B. Kahar) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- A detention order is invalid if it does not communicate to the detenue both the right to representation and the exact time-limit as required by Article 22(5).
- Acquitted FIRs and undifferentiated DDRs cannot constitute fresh grounds for preventive detention absent new criminal proceedings.
- Material supporting each alleged charge must be specifically identified in the grounds of detention.
- Grounds from a detention order quashed by writ cannot be reused, even in part, for a fresh order.
- Courts will strike down PSA orders passed mechanically or without due application of mind to statutory safeguards.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Communication of Rights
The detention order omitted any mention of the detenue’s right to make a representation to the detaining authority and the time-limit (until governmental approval). Reliance on Jitendra v. Barabanki and Article 22(5) mandates clear communication; absence vitiates the order. - Stale FIRs and Vague DDRs
Nine FIRs (2003–07) in which the detenue was acquitted and six unsubstantiated DDRs, without any fresh criminal proceedings, cannot justify preventive detention. The court invoked the principle that DDRs alleging cognizable acts require FIRs. - Specification of Material
Following Showkat Ali v. UT of J&K, grounds must link each charge to specific material. Bald or general allegations deny meaningful representation. - Quashed Prior Order
Under C. B. Kahar, once a detention order is quashed via prerogative writ, its grounds lose all efficacy. The impugned order ignored the 2018 quashment and reused old grounds. - Strict Construction of PSA Powers
In line with Icchu Devi Choraria, preventive detention powers are drastic and must be strictly construed, with the court vigilant against mechanical or arbitrary exercise.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Not informed of the right or time-limit to make representation under Article 22(5).
- Reliance on acquitted FIRs (2003–07) and vague DDRs without any fresh FIR.
- Grounds do not specify material supporting each charge.
- Detaining authority failed to note the 2018 PSA order quashed by this Court.
- Detention order passed mechanically, without application of mind.
Respondents
- The detaining authority applied its mind to the dossier from SSP Kishtwar dated 18.10.2024.
- Grounds of detention reflect subjective satisfaction regarding prejudicial activities.
- All material was supplied, explained in local language, and right to representation was communicated (denied by detenue).
- DDRs evidenced ongoing hostile activities.
Factual Background
Mohd. Abdullah Gujjar challenged a preventive detention order dated 07.11.2024 issued under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, citing threats to state security. The order relied on nine FIRs (2003–07) in which he was acquitted and six DDR entries without corresponding FIRs. He alleged violation of Article 22(5) safeguards—no communication of representation rights or time-limit—and pointed out a 2018 PSA order against him had been quashed by this Court. The State defended the order as based on subjective satisfaction after application of mind and proper communication.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 22(5), Constitution of India: Mandates that a detaining authority must communicate grounds of detention and the right to representation “as soon as may be” and specify the time-limit.
- Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978: Empowers preventive detention for “security of state”; requires subjective satisfaction, due application of mind, and procedural compliance.
- Principle of Fresh Grounds: Post-quashment, original grounds lose authority; fresh grounds must be independent and disclosed.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Strict adherence to Article 22(5) procedural safeguards
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Fresh grounds principle post-quashment under C. B. Kahar
Citations
- Jitendra v. Dist. Magistrate, Barabanki & Ors., 2004 Cri.L.J. 2967
- Showkat Ali v. UT of J&K & Ors., High Court of J&K (26.07.2024)
- C. B. Kahar v. N. L. Kalna, AIR 1989 SC 1234
- Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1980 SC 1983