Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Nazir Ahmad Ronga vs Ut Of J&K &Ors on 17 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 11.02.2025
Pronounced on:17.03.2025
HCP No.267/2024
NAZIR AHMAD RONGA ...PETITIONER(S)
Through: - Mr.Davendra N. Goburdhan, Sr. Advocate,
With M/S Umair Ronga, Tuba Manzoor and
Ms. Sabiya Shabir, Advocates.
Vs.
UT OF J&K &ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG with
Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, GA and
Ms. Maha Majeed, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) The petitioner has challenged order No.DMS/PSA/16/2024 dated 10.07.2024 issued by
respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Srinagar, whereby he
has been detained under Section 8(4) of the J&K Public
Safety Act with a view to prevent him from acting in any
manner prejudicial to the security of the State.
2) The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid detention
order on the grounds that there has been non-application
of mind on the part of respondent No.2 while passing the
impugned order of detention as there is similarity in the
language of the police dossier and the grounds of
detention formulated by the detaining authority. It has
HCP No.267/2024 Page 1 of 28
been further contended that earlier detention order passed
against the petitioner was revoked by the respondents in
the year 2019 and thereafter there has been no fresh
activity attributed to the petitioner. Thus, according to the
petitioner the impugned order of detention is
unconstitutional and illegal. It has also been contended
that the allegations made in the grounds of detention
against the petitioner with regard to his association with
APHC(M) group is absolutely baseless and the alleged
activities attributed to the petitioner pertaining to the
years 1999, 2008 and 2010 are also baseless. It has been
claimed that the petitioner was an elected Municipal
Councillor and thereafter he has also served as a
Government Advocate from 1987 to 1989. Thus, according
to the petitioner, he is a peace loving and law abiding
citizen who has never committed any offence, much less
an offence against the State. It has been submitted that
the petitioner throughout his life condemned terrorism
and extremism through his lectures and speeches but the
respondents have slapped the order of preventive
detention against him without any basis. It has also been
claimed by the petitioner that in his capacity as acting
Chairman of the Bar Association, he had made it sure that
objectionable clauses of the constitution of High Court Bar
HCP No.267/2024 Page 2 of 28
Association are amended and for this purpose, a general
body meeting of the Association was called and its consent
to this effect was also obtained and now the constitution
of the Bar Association has been brought in tune with the
3) It has been further contended that there is no
mention of any specific activity of the petitioner in the
grounds of detention relating to the recent past that could
have influenced the Detaining Authority to pass the
impugned order of detention. It has also been claimed that
the petitioner has all along throughout his life opposed the
ideology of Advocate Mr. Mian Abdul Qayoom and has
contested elections against him. It has been submitted
that the petitioner has always preached against the policy
of separatists and that he has been taken into custody on
flimsy grounds. It has been further submitted that the
petitioner has always preached that the Hurriyat leaders
are selling bone and blood of Kashmiri people and his said
statement has received wide publicity in the local
newspapers regarding which he has also received death
threats but in spite of this, the respondent authorities
have slapped impugned order of detention against the
petitioner.
HCP No.267/2024 Page 3 of 28
4) It has been contended that there were no compelling
reasons for the detaining authority to pass the impugned
order of detention and that the said order has been passed
on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It has been
further contended that the petitioner was not informed
about the time period within which he has to make a
representation against the impugned order of detention.
According to the petitioner, the grounds of detention are
vague, indefinite, uncertain and baseless lacking in
material particulars which has prevented him from
making an effective representation against the impugned
order of detention. It has also been contended that the
petitioner has never been booked in any FIR nor any anti-
national activity has been attributed to him throughout
his career, as such, it was not open to the respondents to
pass the impugned order of detention against him. It has
been further contended that there has been total non-
application of mind on the part of the detaining authority
while passing the impugned order of detention and that
safeguards available to the petitioner in terms of Article
22(5) of the Constitution of India have not been adhered to
in the present case. It has also been contended that whole
of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention
has not been furnished to the petitioner.
HCP No.267/2024 Page 4 of 28
5) Respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Srinagar, has
filed his counter affidavit in opposition to the writ petition,
wherein it has been contended that the petitioner is
affiliated to APHC(M) which is well-known for spreading
anti-national sentiments and secessionist ideologies.
According to the respondents, the petitioner had joined
APHC(M) organization for the purpose of spreading
terrorism and to carry out unlawful activities including
secession of J&K from the Union of India. It has been
further submitted that the petitioner achieved a prominent
position with separatist group as its legal advisor.
According to the respondents in the previous past, the
petitioner has organized various anti-national seminars,
rallies and various other programs for glorifying the
secessionism. It is alleged that the petitioner is actively
working to revive High Court Bar Association in order to
give terrorists and secessionists a platform and that the
said Bar Association has adopted a constitution which
specifies that it will assist the terrorist movement till the
goal of separation of Jammu and Kashmir from the Union
of India is achieved. It has been claimed that under the
influence of Advocate Mr. Mian Abdul Qayoom, who is a
fervent supporter of terrorism and secessionism, the
HCP No.267/2024 Page 5 of 28
petitioner is pushing the previously adopted constitution
of the Bar Association so as to aid the terrorist movement.
6) Giving details of the previous conduct of the
petitioner, it has been submitted that in the year 1999,
the petitioner along with Mr. Mian Abdul Qayoom led
charge in uniting 11 secessionist parties under Tehreek-i-
Hurriyat Kashmir Banner and the said organization has
now been declared as unlawful association by the
Government of India. It has been submitted that the
petitioner has worked with secessionist groups to create
and implement programs and calendars during 2008
Amarnath land row agitation and 2010 agitation, which
resulted in widespread violence across the erstwhile State.
It has been claimed that that the petitioner has organized
many seminars within the premises of Saddar Court,
Srinagar, for preaching cession of Jammu and Kashmir
from Union of India and such seminars were attended by
secessionist leaders like Syed Ali Shah Geelani,
Mohammad Yaseen Malik, Ghulam Nabi Sumji and
Mushtaq-ul-Islam.
7) According to the respondents, in the year 2019, the
petitioner was detained under Public Safety Act following
abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution with a view to
HCP No.267/2024 Page 6 of 28
prevent him from creating a situation that could
jeopardize security of the State. It has been submitted that
even after the release of the petitioner from preventive
detention, he did not mend his ways and continued to
glorify secessionism and held certain secret meetings
organized with like-minded people of High Court Bar
Association to achieve the anti-national goals. It has also
been claimed that the petitioner visited various jails
outside J&K for meeting secessionists and terrorists
lodged in these jail so as to carry forward the ideology of
terrorism and secessionism. Thus, according to the
respondents, the petitioner has been found indulging in
extremely offensive acts and he has not only misused the
platform of Bar Association but he has also permitted
terrorists and secessionists to spread his ideology on the
said platform. According to the respondents, as per the
inputs furnished by the police, the petitioner is a direct
threat to the security of the State keeping in view his past
activities.
8) The respondents have submitted that the detaining
authority, after examining the police dossier and other
material, has drawn subjective satisfaction that activities
of the petitioner are prejudicial to the security of the State,
HCP No.267/2024 Page 7 of 28
as such, it was necessary to pass the impugned order of
detention against him. It has been submitted that the
petitioner has been provided all the material that has
formed basis of the grounds of detention and he has been
explained and made to understand the contents thereof. It
has been further submitted that all the statutory and
constitutional safeguards have been adhered to by the
respondents while detaining the petitioner in terms of the
impugned order of detention.According to the
respondents, the grounds of detention are precise,
proximate, pertinent and relevant and there is no
vagueness or staleness in the same.To lend support to
their contentions, the respondents have also produced the
detention record for perusal of the Court.
9) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the pleadings and the material including the
detention record produced by the respondents.
10) As already stated, a large number of grounds have
been urged by the petitioner for impugning his detention
order but during the course of arguments, much
emphasis was laid by learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner on the ground that there has been total
non-application on the part of the detaining authority
HCP No.267/2024 Page 8 of 28
while passing the impugned order of detention, as a result
whereof, the subjective satisfaction derived by the
detaining authority for detaining the petitioner has
become a casualty and that the grounds of detention,
particularly those relating to recent activities of the
petitioner, on the basis of which the impugned order of
detention has been passed, are vague lacking in material
particulars on the basis of which no prudent person can
make an effective representation nor can the detaining
authority derive its subjective satisfaction for passing the
order of detention.
11) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
has been contended that the grounds of detention bear
reference to the alleged past activities of the petitioner
which relate to a period prior to 2019 but so far as his
recent activities which, according to the detaining
authority prompted it to pass the impugned order of
detention, are concerned, the same are vague and lacking
in material particulars, therefore, the detaining authority
could not have derived subjective satisfaction on the basis
of such material.
12) On the other hand, learned Senior AAG, appearing
for the respondents, has contended that this Court cannot
HCP No.267/2024 Page 9 of 28
undertake a judicial review of the grounds on which
subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the District
Magistrate. In this regard, the learned Sr. AAG has relied
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B (1975) 3 SCC 198.
13) Before proceeding further to consider as to whether
subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining
authority in the instant case is liable to be interfered with
by this Court, it would be necessary to understand the
scope of interference of a Writ Corut in such matters. The
Supreme Court has, in the case of Ameena Begum vs.
State of Telangana and others,(2023) 9 SCC 587, after
analyzing its previous the subject, delineated the scope of
a Constitutional Court to interfere with the orders of
preventive detention. The Supreme Court in the said case
has held that a Constitutional Court,while testing the
legality of the orders of preventive detention, would be
entitled to examine whether:
(i) the order is based on the requisite satisfaction, albeit
subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the
absence of such satisfaction as to the existence of a
matter of fact or law, upon which validity of the
exercise of the power is predicated, would be the
sine qua non for the exercise of the power not being
satisfied;
(ii) in reaching such requisite satisfaction, the detaining
authority has applied its mind to all relevantHCP No.267/2024 Page 10 of 28
circumstances and the same is not based on material
extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute;
(iii) power has been exercised for achieving the purpose
for which it has been conferred, or exercised for an
improper purpose, not authorised by the statute,
and is therefore ultra vires;
(iv) the detaining authority has acted independently or
under the dictation of another body;
(v) the detaining authority, by reason of self-created
rules of policy or in any other manner not authorized
by the governing statute, has disabled itself from
applying its mind to the facts of each individual case;
(vi) the satisfaction of the detaining authority rests on
materials which are of rationally probative value,
and the detaining authority has given due regard to
the matters as per the statutory mandate;
(vii) the satisfaction has been arrived at bearing in mind
existence of a live and proximate link between the
past conduct of a person and the imperative need to
detain him or is based on material which is stale;
(viii) the ground(s) for reaching the requisite satisfaction
is/are such which an individual, with some degree of
rationality and prudence, would consider as
connected with the fact and relevant to the subject-
matter of the inquiry in respect whereof the
satisfaction is to be reached;
(ix) the grounds on which the order of preventive
detention rests, are not vague but are precise,
pertinent and relevant which, with sufficient clarity,
inform the detenu the satisfaction for the detention,
giving him the opportunity to make a suitable
representation; and
(x) the timelines, as provided under the law, have been
strictly adhered to.
14) After laying down the aforesaid tests, the Supreme Court
held that if the exercise of power upon applying the aforesaid tests
is found to be vulnerable, the detention order would call for being
interdicted for righting the wrong.
HCP No.267/2024 Page 11 of 28
15) In the present case, we are concerned with the contention of
the petitioner that the grounds on which the order of preventive
detention has been framed against the petitioner are vague and not
precise. This according to the petitioner has prevented him from
making an effective and suitable representation against the order
of detention.
16) As to what is meant by “vague grounds” has been explained
by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bombay vs. Atma
Ram Sridhar Vaidya, AIR 1951 SC 157. It would be apt to refer
to paragraph 14 of the said judgment, which reads as under:
“14. The contention that the grounds are vague
requires some clarification. What is meant by
vague? Vague can be considered as the
antonym of ‘definite.’ If the ground which is
supplied is incapable of being understood or
defined with sufficient certainty it can be called
vague. It is not possible to state affirmatively
more on the question of what is vague. It must
vary according to the circumstances of each
case. It is, however, improper to contend that a
ground is necessarily vague if the only answer of
the detained person can be to deny it. That is a
matter of detail which has to be examined in the
light of the circumstances of each case. If, on
reading the ground furnished it is capable of
being intelligently understood and is sufficiently
definite to furnish materials to enable the
detained person to make a representation
against the order of detention it cannot be
called vague. The only argument which could be
urged is that the language used in specifying the
ground is so general that it does not permit the
detained person to legitimately meet the charge
against him because the only answer which he
can make is to say that he did not act, as
generally suggested. In certain cases that
HCP No.267/2024 Page 12 of 28
argument may support the contention that
having regard to the general language used in
the ground he has not been given the earliest
opportunity to make a representation against
the order of detention. It cannot be disputed
that the representation mentioned in the second
part of Art. 22(5) must be one which on being
considered may give relief to the detained
person.”
17) The aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court have been
relied upon by a Division Bench of this Court in the case ofBilal
Ahmad Dar vs. UT of J&K and anr. (LPA No.194/2023 decided
on 02.03.2024. The Division Bench, after noticing the aforesaid
observations of the Supreme Court, has explained the legal
position in the following manner:
“20. From the above, what is discernible is
that the grounds must be capable of being
understood clearly and these must be defined
with sufficient clarity. Yet, this is an aspect
which has to be examined in the light of the
circumstance of each case. Thus, if on reading
the ground furnished, it is capable of being
intelligently understood and is sufficiently
definite to furnish materials to enable the
detained person to make a representation
against the order of detention, the same
cannot be called vague. After all, the purpose
of making a representation is to enable the
detained person to persuade the
detaining/competent authority that the
grounds are not good enough or valid for his
detention so that he can be released, as
otherwise there is no purpose for enabling the
detained person to submit the representation.
What is thus to be understood is that, in order
to enable a detained person to make effective
representation to get the relief, he must have
sufficient detailed particulars to persuade the
authority to take a contrary view about
detention order.”
HCP No.267/2024 Page 13 of 28
18) Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Showkat Ali vs. UT of J&K and Ors.(LPA No.19/2024 decided
on 26.07.2024)has, while answering the question as to what is
required to be stated in the grounds of detention, observed as
under:
14. Asregardsthethirdquestionastowhatisrequiredt
obestated
inthegroundsofdetentionviz.,allegationsorcha
rge,thisCourt is of the view that the grounds of
detention must lay down the charge against
the detinue. It must be precise, unequivocal
and unambiguous. The detinue must be in a
position for give aspecific reply/rebuttal to the
charge and that is only possible
wherechargeisspecificandprecise.Else,thedetinu
eisonly able to give a bare denial by stating
that the allegation is false.
However,ifthechargeisspecificregardingthedate
,timeand thespecificact of
thedetinuewhichrequires him to betaken into
preventive detention then, the detinue is able
to give a specific response of denial rather than
a bare denial. Thus, this Court is of the view
that the grounds of detention must lay down
the specific charge against the detinue rather
than unsubstantiated and unverifiable
allegations. If the grounds of detention are
based on unsubstantiated allegations, the
same, along with the order of detention can be
quashed as the detinue has not been given an
opportunity to make a viable representation
either to the detaining authority or to
theadvisory board. The opportunity to
represent to the abovementioned authorities is
not a hollow formality. To detaina person only
based on allegations without there being any
material to substantiate those allegations
would imperil the
fundamentalrightoftheindividualenshrinedinart
icle21of the Constitution.
15. Whenever,theDistrictMagistratereceivesareque
stfromthe
HCP No.267/2024 Page 14 of 28
policealongwiththedossiertodetainanindividu
al,hemust examine the charge by referring to
the material accompanying
thepolicedossierwhichwouldatleastprimafaci
esubstantiate the charge against the detinue.
Besides, the charge against the individual
must be substantial and not fanciful or
imaginary. The District Magistrate must
appreciate that the authority to detain an
individual as a preventive measure would
also result in the violation of article 21 of the
Constitution, if the same is exercised without
caution or accountability. The exigencies of
the time though relevant, cannot be
stretched to the extent of depriving an
individual’s liberty in the absence of
reasonable cause. The material in support of
the charge warranting the detention of an
individual must be such that it prima facie
probabilise the allegations levelled against
him.
16. Thus, subjective satisfaction arrived at by the
District
Magistrateintheabsenceofanymaterialtoprim
afaciesupport the allegations againstthe
detinue,in the police dossier, would smack of
non-application of mind on the part of the
detaining authority. A constitution court
must scrutinize the grounds of detention to
satisfy itself that the allegations contained in
the police dossier and considered by the
District Magistrate in the grounds of
detention, were supported by adequate
material justifying the subjective satisfaction
arrived at by the District Magistrate, that the
detention of the detinue was essential,
eitherintheinterestofsecurityofthestateorpubl
icorder.Whiledoingso,theHighCourtisnotexpe
ctedtosupplantthe subjective satisfaction of
the District Magistrate with thatof its
own,butitisonlytoexaminethegroundsofdeten
tiontosatisfy itselfthat there was reasonable
cause to detainthedetinue. No man may be
summarily detained under the preventive
detention laws only on the basis of
unsubstantiated and bald allegations. It is
only when the detention is justifiable on the
basis of material in support of the allegations
HCP No.267/2024 Page 15 of 28
in the police dossier against the detinue, that
the court would examine whether other
procedural formalities, which are mandatory
have been complied with. Where the
subjective satisfaction of the
detainingauthorityhasbeenarrivedatwithouta
nyprimafacie material in supportofthe
allegations warrantingthe detention ofthe
detinue,the orderofdetentioncannotbe
upheld onlyon
thegroundthatotherconstitutionalandproced
uralsafeguards of giving the material to the
detinue on the basis of which has been
detained, have scrupulously been observed. If
the High Courtadopts a hands-offapproach
while dealingwithanorder
ofdetentionunderthePublicSafetyActonlyonth
egroundthat
themandatoryproceduralsafeguardshavebee
ncompliedwith even after being convinced on
merits that there existed no material against
the detinue in support of the allegations
against him in the police dossier forwarded
to the District
Magistrate,thesamewouldreducetheprotecti
onunderarticle 21 of the Constitution purely
cosmetic.
19) From the foregoing analysis of law on the subject, it is clear
that the grounds of detention must be precise, unambiguous
containing specific and precise particulars so that a detenue is able
to furnish an effective and precise response to the allegations. If
the allegations made in the grounds of detention are ambiguous
lacking in material particulars, it would not be possible for a
detenue to make a specific response and in such circumstances the
response of the detenue would be a bare denial. It is also clear that
the allegations made in the grounds of detention should be based
upon some material, may be intelligence inputs or any other
HCP No.267/2024 Page 16 of 28
material accompanying police dossier that would substantiate the
said allegations. It is further clear from the analysis of the law on
the subject as discussed hereinbefore that if the allegations made
against the detenue in the grounds of detention or the police
dossier are vague and ambiguous and bereft of any supporting
material, the passing of detention order by the detaining authority
in such circumstances would amount to non-application of mind
on its part.
20) In the light of the aforesaid legal position on the issue, let us
now consider the facts of the present case. For coming to the
conclusion as to whether or not the grounds of detention against
the petitioner are vague and lacking in material particulars, as has
been vehemently contended by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner, it would be necessary to have a look
at the same. For the facility of convenience, the grounds of
detention against the petitioner are reproduced as under:-
“Whereas, Senior Superintended of Police,
Srinagar vide No. LGL/Det-PSA/2023/13870-
72 dated 09.07.2024 submitted a dossier for
issuance of warrant for detention under the
provisions of J&K Public Safety act. The
dossier submitted by the District Police
Srinagar contains a host of instances/facts
making out a case for steps required for
preventive detention.
Whereas, SSP, Srinagar has reported in the
dossier that you are working as an advocate
and are affiliated to APHC-M, which is well-
known for spreading anti-national sentiment
and secessionist ideologies. You joined the
HCP No.267/2024 Page 17 of 28
APHC (M) after being influenced by Molvi
Umer Farooq. The organization’s purpose is to
spread terrorism in order to carry out its
unlawful objectives , including the secession
of J&K from the Union of India. Helping
terrorists and their associates, under the
guidance of mentors over the border,
challenge their criminal charges before many
courts around the valley. You achieved the
prominent position within the separatist group
and were proposed to the APHC (M) Group as
their legal advisor. In past you have organized
various anti-national seminars, rallies and
formulated various programs in order to glorify
secessionism.
Whereas, SSP has further reported that you
were active in the J&K High Court Bar
Association in Srinagar and are actively
working to revive the HCBA in order to give
terrorists and secessionists a platform. The
Kashmir High Court Bar Association’s adopted
constitution specified that it will assist the
terrorist movement till the goal of UT of J&K’s
separation from the union of India is
accomplished. Under the influence of
Advocate Abdul Qayoom, a fervent supported
of both terrorism and secessionism, you are
still pushing the previously established
JKHCBA constitution in order to aid the
terrorist movement in achieving the illegal goal
of secessionism.
Whereas, SSP has also reported that in 1999,
you and Mian Abdul Qayoom, President of the
Bar Association, led the charge of uniting 11
secessionist parties under the Tehreek-i-
Hurriyat-e-Kashmir banner. The said
organization has been declared as unlawful
Association by the Government of India. You
worked with secessionist groups to create and
implement programs and calendars during the
2008 Amarnath Land Row agitation and the
2010 agitation, which resulted in widespread
violence which in all possibility was a direct
threat to Security of the State.
Whereas, according to reports, you organized
number of seminars within the premises of
Sadder Court in Srinagar, where secessionist
groups, terrorist organizations and anti-
national elements were brought together to
preach about the secession of UT of J&K and
lure jubilant youths to join terrorist ranks.
HCP No.267/2024 Page 18 of 28
Attending and giving sermons at these
seminars was a common practice for terrorists
and secessionists such as Syed Ali Shah
Geelani, Mohammad Yaseen Malik, Ghulam
Nabi Sumji and Mushtaq ul Islam. The Bar
Association’s platform has not only been
misused by you, but you have also exploited it
to spread anti-national and separatist ideas.
Whereas, in the year 2019, you were detained
under the Public Safety Act despite the fact
that following the Abrogation of Article 370,
you advocated for leading numerous agitations
and were determined to create a situation that
could jeopardize Security of the State in
collaboration with mentors across the border.
However, you came to be released from the
preventive detention, but you have not mend
your ways and glorify the secessionism and
reportedly held recently certain secret
meetings organized with the like-minded
people of the High Court Bar Association to
achieve the anti-national goals. Your history
shows that you have visited several jails
outside of J&K to meet the secessionists and
terrorists lodged in different jails to carry
forward the ideology of terrorism and
secessionism.
Whereas, you and other members who
attended the meeting did not want the Kashmir
Valley, especially in District Srinagar, to return
to normalcy. Instead, you have always worked
to inflame tensions in the State of J&K by
disseminating terrorist and secessionist ideas
and using the Bar Association as a platform for
such propagation. Thus the aim is to revive the
activities of terrorism in the Kashmir Valley so
as to keep the security of state boiling and the
peace returned is hampered.
Whereas, you have found indulging in
extremely offensive acts that propagate the
idea of secession and support terrorist and
separatist movements. To achieve the desired
outcome, you have not only mishandled the
platform of the Bar Association, which is held
in high regard according to the constitutional
system, but you have also permitted terrorists
and secessionists to spread their ideologies on
the ground where the Bar Association is held
in high regard.
HCP No.267/2024 Page 19 of 28
Whereas, you are a direct threat to the
security of the state as per the
credible/confidential sources and the technical
inputs and after assessing your past activities,
you are always trying to find ways and means
to devise programs/seminars/calendars which
have been a direct threat the security of the
state. You did not refrain your anti-national
activities and conspired to flout a new
secessionist terrorist outfit in Jammu and
Kashmir with active support, convince, and
funding from terrorist organizations based in
Pakistan and Pakistani agencies, in order to
further activities of terrorism and secessionism
state of J&K.
Whereas you being a staunch anti-national
element and you cannot see peace returning
in UT of J&K. As such you are always in
search of opportunity to mobilize the ways and
means having bearing on security of UT of
J&K. As such you have been found to have
secretly devised programs for creating large-
scale violence which in all possibility will have
bearing on the security of the UTs.
Whereas, your audacity can be gauged from
the activities you have carried out, is a potent
threat to the maintenance of security of UT of
J&K. There are more than compelling reasons
that once you are allowed to remain at large at
this point of time, you are going to indulge in
activities which are prejudicial to the
maintenance of the security of the state.
Whereas, taking a wholesome view of the
likely impact of your activities upon the overall
scenario, in case you remain at large at this
point of time, there is every chance that you
will conspire with terrorist organizations for
plan some anti-national act in district Srinagar
in coming time.
In order to stop you from indulging in above
activities, your detention under the provisions
of J&K Public Safety Act at this stage has
become imperative, as the normal law has not
been found sufficient to stop you from
indulging in above activities.
Therefore, it is clear that your activities are
highly prejudicial to the maintenance of
security of the state and warrant immediate
preventive measures to be taken against youHCP No.267/2024 Page 20 of 28
to prevent the society from violence, strikes,
economic adversity, and social indiscipline.
On the basis of pre-paras, I have reached to
the conclusion that it would be expedient to
detain you under the provisions of J&K Public
Safety Act,1978 for which orders are being
issued separately”
21) From a perusal of the afore-quoted grounds of detention, it
transpires that the detaining authority has given details of the past
conduct of the petitioner by referring to his association with
APHC (M), Kashmir High Court Bar Association which had
adopted a constitution providing for support to the secessionists,
his association with Advocate Mian Abdul Qayoom, who, as per
the grounds of detention, is a fervent supporter of the secessionism
and terrorism, the association of the petitioner with secessionist
groups during 2008 Amarnath Land Row agitation and 2010
agitation, holding of seminars by the petitioner at Saddar Court
Complex Srinagar where secessionists like Syed Ali Shah Geelani,
Mohammad Yaseen Malik, Ghulam Nabi Sumji and Mushtaq-ul-
Islam had participated and finally the detention of the petitioner in
the year 2019 following the abrogation of Article 370. All these
activities which are specific in nature relate to the past conduct of
the petitioner.
22) What has prompted the detaining authority to pass the
impugned order of detention is the activities of the petitioner
pursuant to his release from preventive custody in the year 2020. If
HCP No.267/2024 Page 21 of 28
we have a look at the activities of the petitioner in which he is
alleged to have indulged post his release in the year 2020, it is
recorded that the petitioner has reportedly held recently certain
secret meetings organized with the likeminded people of High
Court Bar Association to achieve the anti-national goals. It is
further alleged that the petitioner has visited several jails outside
J&K to meet the secessionists and terrorists lodged in different
jails to carry forward the ideology of terrorism and secessionism.
It has also been alleged that the petitioner and other members, who
attended the meetings, do not want valley of Kashmir, especially
District Srinagar, to return to normalcy and that the petitioner is
working to inflame tension in the state of J&K by disseminating
terrorist and secessionist ideas and using the Bar Association as a
platform for such propagation. It is further alleged that the aim of
the petitioner is to revive activities of terrorism in Kashmir valley
and that he has been found indulging in offensive acts supporting
separatists and terrorist movements.
23) It is clear from the aforesaid allegations levelled in the
grounds of detention that the same are lacking in material
particulars. If we minutely examine the alleged activities of the
petitioner post his release from preventive detention in the year
2020, if comes to the fore that the detaining authority has not
HCP No.267/2024 Page 22 of 28
identified the person with whom the petitioner has recently held
secret meetings nor has it identified the persons who are
likeminded members of the High Court Bar Association with the
help of whom the petitioner intends to achieve his anti-national
goals. The identity of the secessionists and terrorists lodged in
different jails with whom the petitioner has met to carry forward
his ideology of terrorism and secessionism is also not discernable
from the contents of the grounds of detention. Even the members
with whom the petitioner attended the meeting with a view to
prevent normalcy to prevail in District Srinagar are not identified
in the grounds of detention. The particulars of the offensive
activities including the places and the dates on which the petitioner
has indulged in such activities are also missing in the grounds of
detention.
24) Thus, it is clear that the allegations made in the grounds of
detention, particularly those which have prompted the detaining
authority to pass the impugned order of detention are vague,
ambiguous, uncertain and lacking in material particulars. On the
basis of such allegations, it was not possible for the petitioner to
make an effective and suitable representation before the detaining
authority or before the Government. This has resulted in violating
HCP No.267/2024 Page 23 of 28
of his Constitutional right to make an effective representation
against the order of detention.
25) The manner in which the grounds of detention have been
formulated by the detaining authority clearly reflects non-
application of mind on its part. The conclusion and the grounds
appear to be of general nature without any specific details about
the particular role played by the petitioner. As has been held by the
Supreme Court in Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya‘s case (supra),
something more than mere grounds of detention is required which
will enable the detenue to make an effective representation against
the detention order. In the facts and circumstances of the present
case, having regard to the nature of vague allegations made in the
grounds of detention, the only thing the petitioner could have said
in his representation was to deny his involvement without making
any specific response to the allegations. In such circumstances and
in view of the ratio laid down in Ameena Begum‘s case (supra)
the impugned order of detention, becomes vulnerable to
interference by this Court.
26) Learned Senior AAG appearing for the respondents has
vehemently contended that having regard to the past conduct of the
petitioner, it can be safely concluded that he is a threat to the
security of the State and that there is nothing on record to show
HCP No.267/2024 Page 24 of 28
that post his release from the preventive detention in the year
2020, he has either changed his ideology or he has mended his
ways. According to the learned Sr. AAG having regard to
dangerous ideology which the petitioner is holding and there being
no evidence to show that he has shunned the said ideology , the
detaining authority was well within its power to pass impugned
order of detention against the petitioner.
27) To support his aforesaid contention, learned Senior AAG has
relied upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case
of “Mian Abdul Qayoom vs. Union Territory of J&K and
Ors“2020 (4) JKJ[HC] 127. In the said judgement, it has been
held that in a case relating to a person with an ideology, even if the
said person may not have violated any law in the immediate past,
but if the detaining authority has suspicion that the person holding
such an ideology has the potential to do so, he can take the
measurers permissible within the law to prevent him from doing
so. In the said judgement, it has also been held that the question
only is whether past conduct or activities can lend succor to such a
suspicion and whether such past conduct or activities emanating
from an ideology can be said to be stale.
28) I am afraid the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this
Court in Mian Abdul Qayoom‘s case (supra) cannot be made
HCP No.267/2024 Page 25 of 28
applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the
detaining authority had relied upon numerous intelligence reports
from the year 2010 to 2019 while passing the order of detention
against the appellant therein. The reference to these intelligence
reports finds mention in the judgement of the Division Bench. It
has been clearly recorded in the judgment that from a perusal of
these chain of reports depicting activities of the detenue even after
2010, the date when last four FIRs were registered against the said
detenue, the Court was satisfied about the continued propensity of
the detenue which would have weighed with a detaining authority
to arrive at a satisfaction recorded in the detention order. On this
basis, the Court found that there was a live link between the
activities of the detenue and the detention order. The Division
Bench in the said judgment further recorded that when it comes to
the propensity of an ideology of the nature reflected in the FIRs
supported by the intelligence reports, which the Court had gone
through, it was convinced that it subserves the latent motive to
thrive on public disorder.
29) In the present case, the detaining authority has not referred
to any intelligence reports nor reference to such intelligence
reports is there in the police dossier. In fact, the detention record
produced before this Court does not contain any intelligence report
that would go on to show that the petitioner has continued to hold
HCP No.267/2024 Page 26 of 28
the same ideology for which he was detained in the year 2019. The
ratio laid down by the Division Bench in Mian Abdul Qayoom’s
case (supra) is clearly not applicable to the facts of the present case
as there is no material on record in the shape of intelligence reports
or otherwise to connect the past activities of the petitioner with the
imperative need of his preventive detention.
30) From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the allegations
levelled against the petitioner in the grounds of detention are
vague, ambiguous and lacking in material particulars, on the basis
of which it was not possible for the petitioner to make an effective
and suitable representation against the impugned order of
detention. Thus, his valuable constitutional right available under
Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India stands infringed. Besides
this, there has been total non-application of mind on the part of
detaining authority in passing the impugned order of detention, as
the allegations made in the grounds of detention, particularly those
relating to his recent activities, are vague and ambiguous. The
same are not even supported by any material in the form of
intelligence report etc, so as to lend some sort of credence to these
allegations. The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining
authority, in these circumstances, has become a casualty. On this
ground also, the impugned order of detention is not sustainable in
law.
HCP No.267/2024 Page 27 of 28
31) For the afore-stated reasons, the petition is allowed and the
impugned detention order is quashed. The respondents are directed to
release the petitioner from the preventive custody forthwith, provided
he is not required in connection with any other case.
32) The record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
Srinagar
17.03.2025
“BhatAltaf-Secy”
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
Mohammad Altaf Bhat
HCP No.267/2024 Page 28 of 28
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
17.03.2025 15:42