J&K&L High Court Upholds Detention Of Alleged OGW, Says Contact With Pakistani Terror Handler Shows Continuing Threat
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld a preventive detention order under the Public Safety Act, 1978, holding that continued involvement of the detenue as an Over Ground Worker (OGW) for terrorist outfits, including The Resistance Front (TRF), coupled with communication with a Pakistani handler through Dark Web applications, demonstrates a sustained threat to the security...
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld a preventive detention order under the Public Safety Act, 1978, holding that continued involvement of the detenue as an Over Ground Worker (OGW) for terrorist outfits, including The Resistance Front (TRF), coupled with communication with a Pakistani handler through Dark Web applications, demonstrates a sustained threat to the security of the Union Territory and renders the plea of stale grounds untenable.
The Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Baramulla, under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, seeking quashment on grounds including vagueness, non-supply of material, and reliance on stale grounds.
A Bench of Justice M. A. Chowdhary, while observing that the “petitioner, besides being involved in five … terrorism related cases, was also detained earlier in the year 2019 under PSA, … and despite of the above measures, petitioner continued to work for terrorists and Resistance Front, which were prejudicial to the maintenance of security of J&K, particularly being in touch with PaK terrorist handler …through Dark-Web Applications to promote terrorism”, held that “the contention of stale grounds is, thus, not tenable and is liable to be rejected”.
The petitioner had challenged the detention order, contending that the grounds of detention were vague, based on stale incidents, and that material relied upon had not been supplied, thereby preventing an effective representation.
The respondents opposed the petition, submitting that the detenue had been persistently involved in anti-national activities and that preventive detention was necessary to curb his continued association with terrorist elements.
The record revealed that the detenue had earlier been arrested in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and had been released on bail, but continued to indulge in activities prejudicial to the security of the State, leading to the impugned detention.
The High Court reiterated that preventive detention is distinct from punitive detention and is aimed at preventing future acts prejudicial to public order and national security. It emphasised that the scope of judicial review in such matters is limited to examining whether procedural safeguards have been complied with and whether the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is based on relevant material.
It relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment in State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya (1951) to hold that courts cannot sit in appeal over the satisfaction of the detaining authority, provided the satisfaction is based on some material having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
The Court noted from the grounds of detention that the detenue had been actively associated with terrorist elements and was working as an OGW for militant outfits. It further took note that he had earlier been apprehended along with incriminating material, including letter pads of TRF, and had been involved in activities aiding terrorist operations.
Even after being released on bail, the Court observed, the detenue continued his involvement in anti-national activities and did not desist from associating with terrorist networks.
The Court took note of specific allegations that the detenue was in touch with a Pakistani terrorist handler through Dark Web applications and was receiving directions to promote terrorist activities in the Sopore area.
It was observed that such conduct clearly demonstrated continued engagement in activities prejudicial to the security of the State, thereby justifying preventive detention.
Addressing the contention that the grounds of detention were stale, the Court held that the argument could not be accepted in light of the continuous nature of the detenue's activities.
It was observed that the detenue had been involved in multiple cases spanning from 2009 to 2021 and had earlier been detained under PSA in 2019, yet continued his activities thereafter. In this backdrop, the Court held that the grounds of detention reflected a continuing pattern of conduct and could not be termed stale.
The Court also examined whether the detenue had been supplied with relevant material and informed of his right to make a representation. It found that the detention order, grounds, and supporting documents had been furnished and explained to the detenue in a language understood by him, therefore rejecting the contention that the detenue had been denied an opportunity to make an effective representation.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the detention order did not suffer from any illegality or procedural infirmity and was based on relevant material demonstrating continued involvement in activities prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed and the detention order upheld.
Case Title: Ahsan ul Haq Khanday v. UT of J&K & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw JKL
Appearances
For the petitioner: Adv. Mohammad Wajid Haseeb
For the Respondents: Dy. AG Hakeem Aman Ali