Avinash Azad
In a stinging rebuke to the Udhampur district administration, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has struck down the preventive detention of Hafeez Mohammad, a 30-year-old resident of Dubigali, Tehsil Moungri, imposed under the controversial Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), 1978.
The detention order —No. 1-PSA-2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Udhampur on 18 January 2025 — had sought to keep Hafeez behind bars to “prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and order.”
However, Justice M.A. Chowdhary, while hearing the petition filed by Hafeez through Advocate Mohd. Akram, found the administration’s action to be riddled with legal infirmities, procedural lapses, and a blatant disregard for constitutional safeguards.
The Court observed that all the cases cited by the District Magistrate — three FIRs and one complaint — were related to alleged bovine transportation and cruelty to animals under provisions of the IPC, BNS, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Crucially, these cases had already been disposed of with only minor fines imposed and had not caused any incidents of communal tension or breach of public order.
The bench made it clear that such allegations, even if assumed to be true, could not justify preventive detention unless there was tangible material to establish a real threat to public peace. “Preventive detention cannot be ordered merely on the basis of such allegations without demonstrable threat to public order,” the judgment reiterated, echoing earlier rulings in Hamid Mohd v. UT of J&K, Muskan Ali v. UT of J&K, and Zaffar Ahmad v. UT of J&K.
The High Court further noted that Hafeez was not informed of the stipulated time limit for making a representation against the detention order before its approval by the Government — a direct violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Such an omission, the Court underlined, rendered the entire detention process unconstitutional.
In a broader critique, the judgment underscored a worrying trend — district administrations issuing PSA orders in a “mechanical and casual manner” without applying their mind to the facts and legal principles involved. This case, the Court implied, was a textbook example of how preventive detention powers are misused as a shortcut to policing, instead of adhering to due process.
Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the detention order and directed the authorities to release Hafeez Mohammad immediately, provided he was not wanted in any other case.
The ruling not only brings relief to Hafeez but also sends a strong message to district magistrates and law-enforcing agencies across J&K that arbitrary deprivation of liberty will not withstand judicial scrutiny. At a time when the PSA remains one of the most debated legal instruments in the Union Territory, the High Court’s judgment once again exposes the sloppy, rights-violating approach adopted by some district administrations — raising serious questions about accountability within the civil bureaucracy of J&K.
