SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the preventive detention of a Shopian youth under the Public Safety Act (PSA), holding allegations that he had shown a “tendency towards anti-national activities” and attempted to contact local youth were too vague to sustain his detention.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal, hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Mashooq Ahmad Shah, ordered his release from preventive custody, subject to him not being required in any other case.
Shah was detained by the District Magistrate, Shopian, on December 23, 2025. He was taken into custody three days later and lodged at the Central Jail Kot Bhalwal in Jammu.
Shah's counsel, Advocate Wajid Haseeb challenged the detention, arguing that the allegations were vague and unsubstantiated and that the authorities had not provided sufficient material for him to make an effective representation.
The advocate also contended that the District Magistrate had relied largely on a police dossier and that relevant documents referred to in the grounds of detention had not been supplied. He said translated copies were also not provided despite his inability to understand English.
The administration defended the detention, stating that intelligence inputs indicated Shah had shown tendencies towards anti-national activities in Shopian and surrounding areas. It said preventive proceedings had earlier been initiated against him under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), including action under Sections 126 and 170.
According to the government, intelligence reports indicated that Shah continued to attempt to contact local youth despite those measures. It said his repeated “bound down” had failed to deter him and that there was a risk he could influence youth towards anti-national and terrorist activities during private gatherings and informal discussions.
The administration maintained that all procedural safeguards had been followed. It said Shah had been provided the detention order, notice of detention, grounds of detention, dossier and other relevant documents, totalling 40 pages, and had acknowledged receipt.
The documents were read out to him in English and explained in Urdu and Kashmiri, it submitted.
The High Court, however, found that the grounds of detention lacked essential particulars. Justice Oswal noted that the authorities had not specified when Shah allegedly attempted to contact local youth or identified the individuals he was said to have approached.
The court also noted that while Shah was accused of maintaining close contact with persons and organisations having extremist leanings, the detention grounds did not identify any such person or organisation.
The High Court held that these vague assertions deprived Shah of a meaningful opportunity to make an effective representation, violating the safeguard under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The court also found fault with the delay in deciding Shah’s representation. His representation, submitted through his brother, was received on January 14, 2026, but was rejected only on March 2, 2026.
Justice Oswal said the respondents had offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay and stressed that representations against preventive detention must be considered with due urgency.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including Jahangirkhan Fazalkhan Pathan v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad and Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur, the High Court reiterated that procedural safeguards are essential checks on the wide powers available under preventive detention laws.