“Ordinary Citizen Not Supposed To Know Full Form Of BNSS Unless Informed”: J&KL High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed a preventive detention order passed under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, observing that an ordinary citizen is not supposed to know the full form or meaning of the abbreviation 'BNSS' unless law enforcement agencies and the concerned magistrate disclose it.
The Court held that the detention order referring to proceedings under section 128 of 'BNSS' without spelling out the full form violated the petitioner's fundamental right to personal liberty and amounted to a blatant abuse of the process of law.
The Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed challenging the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Kathua, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be detained under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.
A Bench of Justice Rahul Bharti, while observing that “the very fact that within seven (7) days, four (4) times' proceedings under section 128 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 stood initiated would mean that none of the proceedings were taken to logical end and still the petitioner came to be clamped under preventive detention,” held that the preventive detention of the petitioner was a blatant abuse of process at the hands of the District Police complemented by the District Magistrate.
The petitioner, Bittu Ram, became a victim of preventive detention jurisdiction exercised by the District Magistrate, Kathua under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 . The grounds of detention referred to the petitioner's so-called objectionable activities, all of which purportedly related to proceedings under section 128 of 'BNSS'.
The petitioner challenged the detention order on the ground that the abbreviation 'BNSS' was not explained, and that the repeated initiation of proceedings under section 128 within a short span of time demonstrated abuse of process.
The Court first noted that the grounds of detention referred to proceedings under section 128 of 'BNSS' without writing the full form. The Court observed that this Court was in a position to understand 'BNSS' as meaning “Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023”, but the same could not be expected of an ordinary citizen.
The Court remarked,
“... An ordinary citizen is not supposed to know what is full form/meaning of BNSS until and unless Law and Order Enforcement Agencies as well as the magistrate concerned would themselves not disclose the full form of the abbreviated/initialized expression which in the present case is 'BNSS' and still the petitioner is referred to be subjected to proceedings under section 128 of BNSS on 20.01.2025 then on 26.01.2025, 05.02.2025 & 21.02.2025 meaning thereby within a period of seven (7) days, the petitioner came to be subjected to proceedings under section 128 of so called 'BNSS'.”
The Court further noted that within seven days, four proceedings under section 128 of the BNSS were initiated, which meant that none of the proceedings were taken to a logical end, and still the petitioner was clamped under preventive detention. The Court observed that in addition to reference of proceedings under section 128, the District Magistrate had referred to purported Daily Diary Reports (DDRs) of 2025 to correlate with those proceedings.
The Court then made a strong observation on the abuse of preventive detention jurisdiction,
“.. If on such like premise, a person's fundamental right to personal liberty is allowed to be curtailed then there cannot be a fundamental right risk free from the hands of the District Police as well as the District Magistrate. So much so, even the ordinary law of land would stand unofficially declared to be deficient at the disposal of the District Police as well as the District Magistrate. Therefore, this Court find the preventive detention of the petitioner in the present case as a blatant abuse of the process of law at the hands of the District Police, Kathua complemented by the District Magistrate, Kathua.”
The Court held that the detention of the petitioner was liable to be quashed on this ground alone. Accordingly, it quashed the detention read with any approval, confirmation or extension order passed by the Government of UT of Jammu & Kashmir.
The Court directed that the petitioner be restored to his personal liberty forthwith by his release from the District or Central Jail, and the Superintendent concerned was directed to release the petitioner immediately.
Case Title: Bittu Ram v. UT of J&K & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)