The High Court reaffirms that preventive detention under the PSA cannot be justified if based solely on stale allegations or FIRs where the ordinary criminal law suffices, and when no proximate or live link between the alleged past conduct and current threat to public order is established. The decision follows Supreme Court precedent and is binding on subordinate courts; it clarifies procedural safeguards under preventive detention laws in Jammu & Kashmir.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | HCP/183/2025 of Sajad Ahmad Bhat Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Home) |
| CNR | JKHC010027612025 |
| Date of Registration | 05-06-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Ms. Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi |
| Court | High Court of Jammu and Kashmir |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Jammu & Kashmir |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedents (Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, Malada Sriram v. State of Telangana) |
| Type of Law | Preventive Detention/Constitutional Law (Public Safety Act) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
Preventive detention orders cannot be sustained if based solely on stale grounds or FIRs where the accused is already on bail, unless authorities clearly demonstrate why ordinary criminal law is insufficient. There must be a live and proximate link between past acts and current threat to maintenance of security or public order. Failure to supply the detenue with the material relied upon for detention impairs the right to make an effective representation. The purpose of preventive detention is not punitive but preventive; using old allegations without proximate connection is impermissible. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Court followed the Supreme Court’s tests that ordinary law must be insufficient to deal with the situation, and a detention order needs a live/proximate link to current threat. Preventive detention is not punitive; stale grounds invalidate detention orders. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The detenue was arrested under FIR No. 119/2020 (Sections 7/25 I.A Act, 18, 23, 39 ULA(P) Act), granted bail in 2023, but subsequently detained under the Public Safety Act in 2025. Detenue claimed that procedural safeguards—particularly provision of relevant material for representation—were not followed. Detention order was passed five years after the underlying FIR with no fresh incidents cited. Respondents claimed the detenue continued alleged prejudicial activities, but did not substantiate how the ordinary criminal process was insufficient or demonstrate a proximate link to security concerns. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; potentially persuasive before the Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that preventive detention orders based only on stale FIRs or allegations with no proximate or live link to present threat cannot be sustained.
- Reiterates the requirement that authorities must justify why ordinary law is inadequate before imposing preventive detention.
- Confirms that reliance on old or unrelated criminal prosecution without showing present necessity makes the detention order illegal.
- Failure to supply the detenue the relied-upon material for effective representation is a fatal procedural defect.
- Lawyers can use this precedent to challenge PSA (Public Safety Act) detentions that rely on similar fact matrices.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reviewed and adopted the Supreme Court’s reasoning from Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu: preventive detention is illegal if ordinary law is sufficient, and if the detention order is based on stale FIRs.
- Cited Malada Sriram v. State of Telangana and allied cases to emphasize that a preventive detention order requires a live and proximate link between past offending conduct and present threat to public order or security.
- The Court examined the delay between the date of the alleged offence (2020) and the detention order (2025) and found the link to be broken—rendering the detention order punitive rather than preventive.
- Observed that non-supply of material relevant to detention impairs the petitioner’s right to make an effective representation, violating procedural safeguards.
- The Court concluded that, in the absence of justification for the inadequacy of ordinary law and a proximate link between past acts and present threat, the detention order is unsustainable.
- The PSA detention order was thus quashed, following the ratio and logic of the cited Supreme Court authority.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Detention is based on stale allegations and an FIR from 2020, with no new material or incidents justifying current preventive detention.
- Petitioner was already released on bail; ordinary law was sufficient to prevent alleged activities.
- Procedural safeguards were violated—detenue was not provided with the relevant documents, thus deprived of effective representation against detention.
Respondents:
- Detenue has allegedly maintained contact with active terrorists and his activities are prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory.
- Preventive detention is necessary given ongoing security concerns and the insufficiency of substantive law to deter him.
Factual Background
The petitioner, Sajad Ahmad Bhat, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 119/2020 of Police Station Rajpora, under offences including Sections 7/25 I.A Act and various sections of the ULA(P) Act. He was granted bail by the competent court on 13.11.2023. In 2025, a preventive detention order under the Public Safety Act was issued against him based on his alleged continued involvement in prejudicial activities. The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds of procedural lapses and reliance on stale allegations without a fresh or proximate threat.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court analysed the requirements of preventive detention under the Public Safety Act, specifically the necessity for a “live and proximate link” between the detenue’s past conduct and the security of the state at the time of detention.
- Discussed the interplay between Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, and the exception in Article 22(3)(b) to ordinary due process.
- Cited the Supreme Court’s clarification that preventive detention laws should not supplant the ordinary criminal justice process unless absolutely necessary.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines issued in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.