The Court observed that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure which cannot be employed as a routine administrative tool merely on the basis of subjective impressions unsupported by objective facts.

Justice Rahul Bharti rendered the ruling while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of Fayaz Ahmad Lone, challenging his preventive detention under Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act pursuant to Order issued by the District Magistrate, Pulwama.

The petitioner, acting through his father, approached the High Court while lodged in District Jail, Rajouri, challenging his preventive detention order which was issued with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner allegedly prejudicial to the security of the State.

The detention order was founded upon a dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Awantipora, alleging that the petitioner had developed separatist ideology from his teenage years, had established links with the banned terrorist organisation Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), and had voluntarily assisted an eliminated JeM commander, Waqas, in carrying out subversive activities. The dossier also referred to other FIR's and preventive proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2024.

Assailing the detention, the petitioner contended that the allegations were baseless, unsupported by any contemporaneous material and reflected complete non-application of mind by the District Magistrate. It was argued that there existed no factual basis to justify invocation of the extraordinary power of preventive detention and that the impugned order violated the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.

Upon examining the detention record, the Court found that the grounds of detention were virtually a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Awantipora, indicating that the District Magistrate had merely borrowed the police's subjective satisfaction without independently assessing the material before him.

The Court observed that, despite making serious allegations against the petitioner, neither the dossier nor the grounds of detention referred to any recent factual material capable of establishing that the petitioner posed a live or imminent threat to the security of the State. The Bench observed,

"The grounds of detention in support of the preventive detention order are mirror image of the dossier submitted by the Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Awantipora meaning thereby even the subjective satisfaction... came to be borrowed literally by the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate."

Justice Bharti described the police dossier as "barren", observing that it lacked any concrete factual foundation justifying recourse to preventive detention. The Court remarked,

"...To put in simple words, the Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Awantipora through his dossier is meaning to say that subjecting a citizen to preventive detention custody is a matter of ipse dixit for which nothing factual is required to be reported except self entertained impression and assumption on the part of the District Police."

The Court further noted that the petitioner had earlier been proceeded against under Section 107 CrPC and had furnished a bond for maintaining good behaviour. However, neither the police nor the District Magistrate had explained why, if the petitioner had subsequently violated the bond conditions, the statutory consequences under the Code of Criminal Procedure were not invoked before resorting to preventive detention. The Court found this omission to be a significant circumstance reflecting absence of proper application of mind.

Emphasising the constitutional importance of personal liberty, the Court observed that preventive detention, though recognised by law, constitutes one of the most serious restrictions on individual freedom and therefore demands strict adherence to statutory safeguards and constitutional principles.

Holding that the police had failed to place objective material before the District Magistrate and that the latter had mechanically adopted the contents of the dossier without independent scrutiny, the Court concluded that the exercise of preventive detention powers stood vitiated by serious illegality.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the detention order along with the consequential approval, confirmation and extension orders, and directed the Superintendent of the concerned Jail to release the petitioner forthwith, unless required in connection with any other case.

Case Title: Fayaz Ahmad Lone v. UT of J&K & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 296

Appearances

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sheikh Mushtaq, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, Government Advocate.

Click here to read/download the Judgment.