I. Introduction
The preventive detention regime in India often finds itself at the intersection of two conflicting imperatives: the need to safeguard individual liberty on one hand, and the obligation to protect national security and public order on the other. The Jammu & Kashmir High Court’s decision in Mumtaz Ahmed v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors., pronounced on 07 April 2025, is a crucial reaffirmation of the constitutional and statutory framework governing preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (“PSA”).
The Court, while rejecting the habeas corpus petition filed by the detenue, held that non-disclosure of intelligence inputs used to justify preventive detention is permissible under law, provided it is in the interest of public safety and national security. This ruling affirms the established legal precedent that the State is not obligated to furnish confidential or classified material forming the basis of detention to the detenue if its disclosure would compromise public interest.
II. Background and Factual Matrix
The petitioner, Mumtaz Ahmed, was detained pursuant to an order passed by the District Magistrate, Poonch (Detaining Authority) vide No. 17/DMP/PSA of 2024 dated 26 July 2024. The detention was ordered to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.
The grounds of detention recorded that the petitioner was actively engaged as an Over Ground Worker (OGW) for the proscribed terrorist organization Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) and its frontal proxy outfit PAFF (People’s Anti-Fascist Front). He was accused of aiding terrorist movement, facilitating logistics, and maintaining contact with terror operatives, including one Haq Nawaz, based in Saudi Arabia.
The petitioner challenged the detention through a habeas corpus petition primarily on two grounds:
- Non-supply of complete material forming the basis of detention, particularly the annexed intelligence report.
- Mechanical reproduction of the police dossier in the grounds of detention, indicating non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority.
III. Legal Issues for Determination
- Whether failure to supply the confidential annexure (special intelligence report) to the detenue violated his constitutional right under Article 22(5)?
- Whether the grounds of detention were mechanically reproduced from the police dossier, thereby vitiating the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority?
IV. Petitioner’s Submissions
The petitioner, represented by Mr. K. M. Bhatti, Advocate, contended that the failure to furnish Annexure-I, a special intelligence report forming part of the detention dossier, rendered the detention illegal. According to the petitioner, non-supply of this document prevented him from making an effective representation, thus violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the PSA.
It was also argued that the grounds of detention were a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier, thereby showing a lack of independent application of mind by the Detaining Authority, which is a sine qua non for valid preventive detention.
In support, the petitioner relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:
- Rameez Ahmed Lone v. UT of J&K, 2024 (1) JKJ 145
- Abdul Hameet Khan v. UT of J&K, Law Finder Doc ID 2619379
- Khurshid Ahmed v. UT of J&K, HCP No. 91/2024 (Decided on 19.12.2024)
V. Respondents’ Stand
Represented by Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Deputy Advocate General, the respondents justified the detention, asserting:
- The petitioner was furnished all relevant and permissible documents—detention order, notice, grounds of detention, and five pages of the police dossier.
- The Annexure-I referred to by the petitioner was a confidential intelligence report prepared by the District Special Branch, the disclosure of which would have compromised public interest.
- The Detaining Authority applied its independent judgment and subjective satisfaction, as evident from the distinct drafting of grounds of detention and contextual analysis.
The State emphasized that the procedure followed was consistent with Section 13(2) of the PSA and Article 22(6) of the Constitution, both of which allow non-disclosure of material when public interest is at stake.
VI. Analysis and Findings of the Court
A. Non-Supply of Intelligence Input
Justice Sanjay Dhar examined the constitutional and statutory position on disclosure of materials in preventive detention. The Court acknowledged that Annexure-I, a special intelligence report, had not been supplied to the detenue. However, the Court clarified that there is no absolute obligation to furnish such documents.
The Court relied on the following authoritative precedents:
- Supreme Court’s ruling in Wasi-ud-din Ahmed v. District Magistrate, Aligarh, (1981) 4 SCC 521, which held that the District Magistrate was not bound to disclose intelligence reports if disclosure compromised public interest.
- Division Bench ruling in Mian Abdul Qayoom v. UT of J&K, 2020 (4) JKJ (HC) 127, which reiterated that confidential intelligence inputs need not be shared with the detenue if protected under Article 22(6).
The Court held that Section 13(2) of the PSA vests the Detaining Authority with discretion to withhold facts deemed prejudicial to public interest. A similar power is conferred under Article 22(6) of the Constitution.
“It was not mandatory for the Detaining Authority to furnish a copy of the intelligence report to the petitioner. Merely because confidential information was not provided… it cannot be stated that constitutional and statutory rights of the petitioner have been violated.“
Thus, the first challenge was found legally untenable.
B. Alleged Mechanical Reproduction of the Dossier
On the second issue, the Court conducted a comparative analysis between the police dossier and the grounds of detention. It found no mechanical reproduction, stating that the Detaining Authority had exercised due diligence and considered the material contextually.
The grounds of detention included:
- The petitioner’s communications with foreign-based terrorist operatives.
- His activities for PAFF, facilitating terror attacks in Poonch district.
- His role in harboring and supporting terrorists within the region.
“The Detaining Authority has drawn its subjective satisfaction that in order to uphold the security interests of the UT of J&K and the Indian State, it is imperative to detain the petitioner.“
The Court concluded that there was sufficient application of mind, and thus, no procedural infirmity existed in the drafting or issuance of the detention order.
VII. Judgment
In light of the above findings, the High Court held that:
- The non-disclosure of the intelligence annexure was legally justified and protected under statutory and constitutional provisions.
- The grounds of detention reflected proper application of mind and were not merely a replica of the police dossier.
Consequently, the habeas corpus petition was dismissed, and the detention order was upheld.
VIII. Conclusion
The judgment in Mumtaz Ahmed v. UT of J&K & Ors. reaffirms the principle that national security and public interest may legitimately outweigh individual procedural entitlements in the preventive detention framework. By relying on established constitutional doctrine and precedent, the Court has struck a judicious balance between liberty and security.
The ruling also underscores the discretionary authority conferred upon Detaining Authorities under both the PSA and the Constitution, and clarifies that preventive detention can remain constitutionally valid even in the absence of full disclosure, provided sufficient justification exists.
Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.