The High Court dismissed the pending appeal as infructuous because the respondent was already released from detention and no further purpose would be served. The underlying quashing of the detention order by the writ court thus stands undisturbed. This ruling upholds procedural precedent and clarifies the practical consequences of infructuous appeals in preventive detention cases, providing binding authority within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | LPA/68/2021 of UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K THROUGH PRICIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. HOME DEPT. AND ANR Vs FAROOQ AHMAD MALIK THROUGH HIS COUSIN RAZIA |
| CNR | JKHC010020532021 |
| Date of Registration | 02-06-2021 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed as Infractuous |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR |
| Court | High Court of Jammu and Kashmir |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the procedural approach when appeal becomes infructuous |
| Type of Law | Preventive Detention / Procedural Law |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The appeal challenging the quashing of a preventive detention order was dismissed as infructuous since the respondent-detenu had already been released following the judgment under appeal and significant time had elapsed, making further adjudication purposeless. The court clarified that when the main relief sought has been rendered academic by the passage of time or compliance, the appeal should not be kept pending. The procedural dismissal leaves the original writ court order quashing detention undisturbed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The writ court allowed the respondent’s petition and quashed the detention order. The detenu was released in compliance with the writ court’s judgment. The government’s appeal was pending for several years, but the detenu remained out of detention, rendering the appeal infructuous. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; may be cited as persuasive authority on procedural aspect of infructuous appeals in detention cases |
| Follows | Follows the procedural principle that courts should dismiss appeals as infructuous where the underlying relief is rendered academic by change of circumstances |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that where an appeal against a quashing of preventive detention is rendered academic (for example, by the respondent’s release and lapse of substantial time), the High Court will dismiss such appeal as infructuous.
- Lawyers should note the reaffirmed procedural approach that keeping such appeals pending serves no useful judicial purpose once the central issue has been resolved by compliance or efflux of time.
- The original order quashing the detention remains undisturbed if the appeal is dismissed as infructuous.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that the respondent-detenu was already out of detention in compliance with the writ court’s earlier judgment.
- Since the main grievance giving rise to the appeal no longer existed and no useful purpose would be served by adjudicating on already-obsolete issues, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
- The court invoked established procedural practice, holding that appeals with no live issue or effective relief should be dismissed accordingly, rather than kept pending on the file.
- By dismissing the appeal, the High Court left intact the writ court’s judgment quashing the detention order.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Union Territory of J&K)
- Challenged the writ court’s order quashing the detention.
- Sought appellate adjudication on the validity of the preventive detention order.
Respondent (Farooq Ahmad Malik through his cousin Razia)
- Respondent was already released in pursuance of the writ court’s order.
- No further effective relief or grievance survived for adjudication.
Factual Background
The respondent-detenue challenged his preventive detention under a detention order dated 4 July 2019. The writ court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order on 7 December 2020. The government appealed; however, the detenu had already been released in compliance with the writ court’s decision. The appeal thus lost its practical relevance during pendency.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment addresses procedural aspects concerning appeals in habeas corpus and preventive detention matters but does not discuss or interpret specific statutory provisions in detail.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment; both Judges concurred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous.
Procedural Innovations
The judgment does not set new procedural innovations but reinforces established practice for handling infructuous appeals in preventive detention cases.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms existing procedural practice that appeals rendered academic by subsequent events should be dismissed as infructuous.