SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has directed the Deputy Commissioner Srinagar to appear personally in the court on Thursday and explain why a preventive detention (PSA) order was passed “recklessly and mechanically” without due application of mind.
A single bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Zubair Amin Bangroo, directed the DC to produce the complete original record relating to the detention, including the police dossier and material considered by the detaining authority before reaching its satisfaction.
In its October 15 order, the court held that the grounds of detention appeared to lack specific particulars and contained an internal inconsistency that raised doubts about whether the authority had independently assessed the material or merely reproduced allegations supplied by the police. The matter has been listed for hearing in the Srinagar wing of the High Court today.
Bangroo, who has been booked under the stringent Public Safety Act, has challenged his detention under PSA under an order dated Jan 13, 2026. He was booked under PSA on allegations of his association with terrorist elements and activities allegedly prejudicial to the security of the State.
According to the grounds of his detention, he had allegedly developed close links with terrorist elements, provided them logistical and moral support, and allowed his residential premises and other safe locations to be used as hideouts. The allegations also referred to his purported contact with members of the network and attempts to reconnect with elements operating outside the Union Territory.
Advocate Nida Nazir, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the allegations were vague and unsupported by material particulars.
She submitted in the court that the detention grounds did not identify the terrorists with whom Bangroo allegedly maintained links, the associates involved, the locations purportedly used as hideouts or the specific incidents in which he allegedly provided support.
The counsel argued that the grounds failed to identify individuals whom Bangroo was accused of motivating or instigating to undertake unlawful activities.
She contended that the order had been passed hurriedly, without proper application of mind, and pointed out that no FIR had been registered against him.
Upon a prima facie examination of the grounds and the submissions, Justice Nargal observed that the allegations, despite their seriousness, did not clearly identify the persons, incidents, locations or specific acts on which the detaining authority had relied.
“The very use of the expression 'aforementioned terrorists' thus furnishes a compelling circumstance to doubt whether the detaining authority independently examined and formulated the grounds of detention or merely reproduced the contents of the police dossier,” the court observed.
The judge also referred to another habeas corpus petition, HCP No. 321/2025, concerning a separate detention order issued by District Magistrate, Srinagar.
Similar prima facie concerns had arisen in that matter over the apparent reproduction of a police dossier without evidence of independent assessment.
The similarities, the court observed, raised questions about whether preventive detention powers were being exercised following an objective evaluation of the material or through the mechanical reproduction of police allegations.
“A police dossier may constitute the basis for consideration by the competent authority; however, it cannot, by itself, dispense with the indispensable requirement that the detaining authority must independently examine the material, assess its relevance and arrive at its own subjective satisfaction in accordance with law”, Justice Nargal said.
Emphasising the constitutional safeguards governing preventive detention, the court observed that such detention was an extraordinary measure because it deprived a person of liberty without a regular criminal trial.
The judge said Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution imposed a corresponding obligation on the detaining authority to act with constitutional responsibility and procedural diligence.
The court also noted that the absence of a criminal case, by itself, might not determine the validity of a preventive detention order. “The authority must nevertheless demonstrate that the statutory requirements had been independently and lawfully fulfilled.”
Holding that the concerns warranted an explanation from the officer responsible for issuing the order, the court directed the Deputy Commissioner to furnish an explanation as to why he had recklessly and mechanically passed the impugned detention order without due application of mind. The Registry was directed to communicate its order to the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar for compliance.