Illegal Acts Committed As Juvenile Cannot Form Basis For Preventive Detention: J&K&L High Court

The Court was hearing an intra-court appeal filed against the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention of a 20-year-old under Section 8 of the Public Safety Act.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal examined the grounds of detention, the detention record, and the dossier placed before the District Magistrate, and observed that “an illegal act committed by a juvenile does not stigmatize his future and likewise, any illegal act committed by the juvenile cannot form the basis for issuance of a detention order under the Act, therefore holding that “the appellant could not have been detained for activities allegedly committed while he was juvenile”.

The matter arose after the appellant was detained under the Public Safety Act in pursuance of an order issued by the District Magistrate, Pulwama. The writ petition challenging the detention was dismissed, prompting the present appeal.

The detention order relied on the appellant's arrest in an FIR, registration of a charge-sheet before the Juvenile Justice Board, and certain alleged activities thereafter. The appellant contended that he was a juvenile at the time of the FIR and that the alleged grounds were vague and not proximate to the detention order.

The respondents defended the detention, maintaining that credible material had been placed before the detaining authority.

The J&K and Ladakh High Court, upon examining the record, found from the detention record that the dossier relied significantly on an FIR in which the appellant was admittedly a juvenile and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board.

Referring to Section 8(3)(f) of the Public Safety Act, the Bench held that a juvenile cannot be detained under the Act and that illegal acts committed during minority cannot be used to justify a preventive detention order.

The Court observed that the Act expressly prohibits detention of juveniles and that past acts committed during minority cannot be used to form the subjective satisfaction necessary for preventive detention.

The Court then examined Section 10-A of the Act to consider whether the remaining grounds could independently sustain the detention and found that the remaining grounds were vague and lacked specific details regarding place, time, incidents, or persons involved.

The Court observed that general allegations, such as instigating youth to join terrorists or providing logistic support, without particulars, rendered the grounds insufficient to convey reasons for detention with clarity or allow the detenu to make an effective representation.

Citing Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana (2023), the Court reiterated that the grounds of detention must be precise, proximate, and supported by rationally probative material. Similarly, relying on Fazalkhan Pathan v. Police Commissioner (1989), the Court reiterated that vague and unspecified allegations render a detention order invalid.

As the grounds were incomplete, imprecise, and partly based on juvenile-stage allegations, the Court held that the detention order was legally unsustainable.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgment of the writ court, quashed the detention order dated, and directed the immediate release of the appellant from preventive custody, unless required in any other case.

Case Title: Tahir Riyaz Dar v. UT of J&K & Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click here to read/download Judgment