'Anti-National' Posts/Chats On Facebook Justified Preventive Custody: J&K&L High Court Declines Detainee's Plea

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has upheld a preventive detention order passed against a detainee accused of posting content on Facebook that raised security concerns, observing that the decision of the detaining authority was not mechanical, but based on material that could reasonably lead to satisfaction that preventive custody was necessary.

Justice Sanjay Dhar recorded that the authorities had relied on the detenue's Facebook activity and accompanying reports indicating conduct "prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order."

It held that such online activity was a relevant factor for the authority to assess the potential of the detenue indulging in activities detrimental to peace.

"It is on the basis of these anti-national videos/photos/posts/chats which were uploaded by the petitioner on his Facebook account that the detaining authority was satisfied that it is necessary to detain the petitioner in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the security to the State," the court said.

Rejecting the argument that detention was based on mere suspicion, the Bench noted that there was sufficient material before the detaining authority to justify preventive action.

The court emphasised the decision is not mechanical or routine. The Facebook posts and inputs received formed part of the record before the authority, and subjective satisfaction was arrived at after due consideration, the court held.

The Court reiterated that preventive detention aims to forestall anticipated threats, not punish past conduct, stating:

In matters of security and public order, the Court does not sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, unless found to be based on no material or in violation of procedural safeguards, it was said.

The Bench further found no constitutional or statutory violation in the execution of the order and the detenue had been supplied with grounds of detention and afforded the right to representation. The Court concluded:

“No procedural infirmity or illegality has been demonstrated warranting interference. The petition stands dismissed,” the court said.

Case-Title: WASEEM AHMAD DAR Vs UT OF J&K & ORS, 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order