Srinagar:The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has upheld the preventive detention of an alleged Over Ground Worker (OGW) “linked to banned terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT)”, while also ruling that the adapted provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA) remain legally valid after the 2019 reorganisation of the erstwhile State.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of detenue Tanveer Ahmad Mir of Bomai area of Baramulla, challenging detention order No. 09/DMB/PSA/2025 dated April 29, 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Baramulla.
The judge held that the detention order was based on “relevant, live and proximate material” and did not suffer from any “constitutional infirmity, procedural illegality, mala fide, perversity or jurisdictional error.”
According to the detention record, the detenue was alleged to be an active OGW “affiliated with LeT” and accused of “providing logistical support, shelter and transportation to militants” operating in Sopore and adjoining areas. Authorities also alleged that he maintained contact with “Pakistan-based handlers through encrypted communication applications and proxy networks”.
The petitioner had argued that the detention order was a mechanical reproduction of the police dossier and violated constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5). It was also contended that all material relied upon by the detaining authority had not been supplied to the detenue, thereby preventing him from making an effective representation.
A major constitutional challenge was also raised against the continued operation of the PSA after the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019. The petitioner claimed that replacing the phrase “security of the State” with “security of the Union Territory” through executive adaptation was unconstitutional and could only be done by the Parliament.
Rejecting the contention, Justice Nargal held that Sections 95 and 96 of the Reorganisation Act expressly empowered the Central government to adapt and modify pre-existing laws applicable to Jammu and Kashmir.
He observed that the 2020 notification substituting the term “State” with “Union Territory” in the PSA was issued within the statutory framework created by the Parliament itself.
“The adaptation does not change the basic nature, object or policy of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978,” he said, describing the modification as a “consequential change” necessitated by the 2019 reorganisation.
The bench further held that the detenue had been supplied the detention order, grounds of detention, dossier, FIR and connected material comprising 25 leaves, which were also explained to him in Urdu and Kashmiri. It noted that the detenue had, in fact, exercised his right to representation, which was considered and rejected by the competent authority.
The court also rejected the plea that similarity between the police dossier and grounds of detention automatically established non-application of mind, observing that the detaining authority had independently assessed intelligence inputs, antecedents and prevailing security concerns in the Valley.
The court observed that preventive detention may become necessary in exceptional circumstances involving national security and public order.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed along with all connected applications.
