J&K&L High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order Against Teen, Says JJ Act Excludes Preventive Detention Mechanisms Meant For Adults

The Court observed that acts committed during juvenility lose their determinative value for future preventive action, and that the detaining authority's failure to consider the juvenility of the detenue rendered the order vitiated on account of non-application of mind.

A Bench of Justice M. A. Chowdhary, while observing that “a child in conflict with law cannot be equated with an adult offender so as to justify preventive detention,” held that “preventive detention laws like Public Safety Act are exceptional in nature and must be strictly construed. Application of such law to a juvenile defeats the very object of juvenile justice jurisprudence.” The Court directed the release of the detenue forthwith.

The Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the father of Fariz Gulzar (18 years), challenging Detention Order passed by the District Magistrate, Pulwama, detaining him under the PSA to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State.

Background

The detenue came to be arrested in an FIR in 2023 for offences under Sections 302 IPC and 2/25 of the Arms Act alleging involvement in antinational/subversive activities. He was also found working as a potential Over Ground Worker of killed terrorists.

The detenue was earlier lodged in Juvenile Home for almost one year and three months and was subsequently released on bail on 02.01.2025. After his release, the detaining authority observed his activities as highly prejudicial to the security of the State and passed the impugned detention order.

The grounds of detention indicated the age of the detenue as 18 years and 16 days as on the date of detention (30.04.2025), meaning that on the date of his alleged involvement in the case registered in 2023, he was approximately 16 years old and thus a juvenile.

Court's Observation:

Adjudicating the matter the Court addressed the core interplay between the PSA and the Juvenile Justice Act and referenced Union of India v. Ramesh Bishnoi (2019) 19 SCC 710 , to observe,

“.. The thrust of the legislation, i.e. 'The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000' as well as 'The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015' is that even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated, so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed by such person as a juvenile. This is with the clear object to reintegrate such juvenile back in the Society as a normal person, without any stigma.”

The Court further relied upon a Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in Tahir Riyaz Dar v. Union Territory of J&K (LPA No.121/2025 decided on 06.11.2025) , which held:l,

“... 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 subsequently, more particularly when the juvenile cannot be detained under the Act.”

Applying this principle, the Court held that the detention order, being substantially founded upon the FIR of 2023 and allegations pertaining to the period when the detenue was a juvenile, was vitiated.

The Court noted that the detention order contained no reference to the age of the petitioner or consideration of the applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act, but was merely a mechanical reproduction of the Police dossier. The Court held,

“... The failure to consider a vital and relevant factor i.e., juvenility of the petitioner on the date of alleged activities, renders the order vitiated on account of non-application of mind. It is well settled that subjective satisfaction must be based on complete and relevant material, failing which the order cannot be sustained.”

On the broader principle of preventive detention, the Court referred to Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 5 SCC , wherein the Supreme Court held that preventive detention is repugnant to democratic ideas and must be confined within very narrow limits, and that if ordinary law can deal with a situation, recourse to preventive detention law is illegal.

The Court observed that in the present case, the detenue could have been dealt with under the Juvenile Justice framework, and the detaining authority had shown no compelling necessity to bypass such mechanism.

Scrutinising the grounds of detention, the court found them to be vague and held that vague and general statements without particulars prevent the detenue from making an effective representation.

The Court thus allowed the petition, quashed the impugned detention order, and directed the release of the detenue forthwith, provided he was not required in any other case.

Case Title: Fariz Gulzar (through father) v. UT of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click here to read/download Judgment