Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Maryama Begum Th. Mohd vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 24 September, 2025
S-1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
(Through Virtual Mode)
Pronounced on: 24.09.2025.
HCP No. 4/2025
Maryama Begum Th. Mohd.
Mushtaq
...Petitioner.
Through: Mr. Mohd. Aamir Awan, Advocate.
Vs.
UT of J&K and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, GA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE.
JUDGMENT
1. Impugned in the instant petition, filed on behalf of the
petitioner/detenu under the provisions of Article226 of the
Constitution of India, is the order of detention bearing No. 09-PSA-
2024 dated 29.11.2024, issued by the respondent No. 2 i.e. District
Magistrate, Udhampur (hereinafter referred to as the 'detaining
authority' for short), in exercise of its powers vested under Section
8(1) of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'PSA' for short), whereby the petitioner-detenue
was ordered to be detained and lodged in District Jail, Amphalla
Jammu, for a period to be specified by the Government with a view
to prevent her from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security
of the State.
2. The impugned detention order has been assailed in this
petition on the grounds, inter alia, that same suffers from patent
illegality, for being outcome of a casual exercise, bereft of
application of mind on the part of the learned detaining authority;
that there is no supporting material basing the allegations against the
petitioner-detenue leading to the issuance of the impugned order;
that bald allegations have been leveled against the petitioner without
any supporting material or specific allegation; that the grounds of
detention are vague, based on mere suspicion; that the learned
detaining authority has acted on the police dossier treating the same
as factual, without there being any specific supporting allegation in
terms of date, time and incident; that the copies of the detention
record i.e. impugned order, grounds of detention, police dossier and
the documents relied upon, were not furnished to the petitioner-
detenue immediately upon her arrest in execution of the detention
warrant and she was not also made to understand the allegations
against her as per the detention record in the language
understandable by her being an uneducated lady; that she was
prevented from making an effective representation to the detaining
authority or to the Government in time as she never knew and
understood the allegations against her; that the grounds of detention
constitute the replica of the police dossier revealing thereby the non-
application of mind on the part of the detaining authority; that the
rights of the petitioner-detenue, under the provisions of Article 22(5)
of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of PSA have not been
complied with by the detaining authority, and as per the spirit and
logic of the said provisions and that the petitioner-detenue was never
involved in any criminal case, meaning thereby that the allegations
against her are bald and vague.
3. The learned detaining authority has resisted the petition
through its counter affidavit on the grounds that the detention order
impugned in the petition does not suffer from any illegality or
perversity as having been issued strictly in accordance with law, on
proper application of mind. That there was sufficient record in the
form of police dossier and the copies of documents enclosed
therewith, to prima faciebelieve that the petitioner-detenue has been
indulging in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the
State, owing to which fact her detention, as a preventive measure,
became imperative. That respondent No. 3 vide his dossier dated
12.11.2024reported that there is strong apprehension that the
petitioner has affiliations with terrorist organizations as her husband
namely. Mohd. Shafeeq is believed to have joined a militant group
raising significant concerns.
That petitioner's residence located at Karoor Nallah, Village
Loudhra, is a secluded dhok situated deep within a forest area where
she visits frequently during the summer months for livestock
grazing, utilizing the said opportunity to engage in clandestine
terrorist activities due to her husband's involvement. That her
growing influence and active collaboration with terrorist
organizations poses a serious threat to the security of the State. That
multiple inputs have been received from intelligence agencies that
she shares critical intelligence, including details about local
infrastructure, security forces movements during counter insurgency
operations and other sensitive information which has compromised
the success of numerous operations conducted by the Basantgarh
Police Station in the recent past. That petitioner is suspected of
providing logistic support to anti-national elements, thereby
facilitating the potential for terrorist attacks.
That the activity of the petitioner necessitates immediate and
heightened vigilance coupled with decisive action to neutralize
herinfluence and dismantle her associated network. That further
between 27.09.2024 to 03.11.2024, Law Enforcement Agencies
conduced multiple cordon and search operations within the area.
That those operations despite their scale, failed to apprehend the
suspected terrorists. That petitioner is suspected of being the source
of the leaks resulting in the escape of the terrorists from capture.
That the petitioner has been officially classified as an 'Over-Ground
Worker' within the record of Basantgarh Police Station. That
multiple source including 'Daily Diary Report' statements from local
Chowkidars and Numberdars, Beat Book records maintained by
Police Station Basantgarh and intelligence agency inputs consistently
indicate the petitioner's intent to incite insurgency.
That the conduct of the petitioner poses a significant threat
toregional harmony and the security of the State, particularly within
the District Udhampur. That in the recent months, Law Enforcement
Agencies have conducted intensive search operations within the
upper reaches ofBasantgarh and its neighbouring areas targeting
foreign terrorists who have illegally infiltrated from Pakistan
Occupied Kashmir. That those operations have been undertaken in
response to critical intelligence indicating the presence of heavily
armed militants posing a significant security threat. Tragically on
28.04.2024 Village Defence Guard, Mohd Shareefwas killed in the
line of duty during an engagement with these terrorists. That
furthermore a subsequent encounter in August resulted in death of
Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Inspector highlighting the
perilous nature of these ongoing counter-terrorism efforts. That
investigations have further revealed that petitioner, a resident of high
altitude forest area, known for frequent terrorist activities and being
the spouse of a known terrorist, is suspected of providing logistic
support and intelligence inputs to the foreign terrorists.
That the petitioner has been observed to be engaging in
suspicious activities in the vicinity of ongoing search and seizure
operations, raising critical concerns regarding her potential
involvement in obstructing law enforcement efforts. That copies of
the detention record including notice of detention, grounds of
detention, dossier of detention and other documents, on the basis of
which the petitioner has been detained under PSA, were forwarded
to Sr. Superintendent of Police, Udhampur, for being furnished to the
petitioner-detenue at the time of execution of the warrant with the
further direction that the contents of the said documents should be
explained and made understandable by the petitioner in her own
local language. That the provisions of Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India and other relevant provisions of PSA have been
fully complied with by furnishing the detention record to the
petitioner with liberty to make representation in respect of her
detention to the Government.
That the detention order was approved by the Government
within stipulated period and after being confirmed by the learned
Advisory Board, the period of detention to hold good in the first
instance was prescribed by the Government. That an order of
preventive detention can be made with or without prosecution as the
object of the same is to prevent a person from acting in anymanner
prejudicial to the security of the State. That the petitioner has been
detained as a precautionary measure based on reasonable prognosis
of her future behavior. That adequacy of material on which the
answering respondent has drawn satisfaction for invoking the
provisions of Public Safety Act is not open to judicial review. That
the grounds of detention and other relevant materials thereof were
fully examined and considered properly by the Government. That it
is settled legal position that where individual's liberty comes into
conflict with the interest of the security of the State or maintenance
of public order, then the liberty of the individual must give way to
the larger public interests.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating his stand
already taken in the memo of petition has submitted that the
impugned detention order suffers from patent illegality as being
outcome of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining
authority. That the impugned detention order has been passed on
mere suspicion without any specific allegation against the petitioner.
That the representation of the petitioner has been rendered
meaningless for want of any specific allegation against her in terms
of time, date and incident. That the grounds of detention appear to be
the ditto of the police dossier, thus pointing towards the non-
application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. That the
copies of the detention record were not furnished to the petitioner-
detenue at the time of her arrest in execution of the PSA warrant but
were furnished to her brother-in-law on his demand when, after some
days, he was permitted to see her in District Jail, Amphalla Jammu.
That there is no question of making the contents of the detention
record understandable to the petitionerin her own local language,
being an uneducated lady. The learned counsel in support of his
arguments placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in
LPA No. 19/2024 titled "Showkat Ali S/O Mishar Din @ Mishru
vs. UT of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors"decided on 26.07.2024, in
which it has been laid down that the detention order passed on the
bald allegations, bereft of any supporting materials is illegal and
cannot sustain. It was, inter alia, held in the said judgment that in the
absence of any specific allegation against the detenue, the latter is
not in a position to tender his/her explanation and to make
meaningful representation thereto. That such a detention order
violates the fundamental rights of the detenue guaranteed under
Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
The learned counsel in support of his arguments also placed
reliance on another authoritative judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India titled "Devi Lal Mahto vs. State of Bihar and Anr
1982 AIR (SC) 1548",in which it has been held that inordinate delay
in addressing the representation of a detenue vitiates the detention
order.
6. Per contra, the learned UT counsel Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, ld.
GA, submitted that the detention order passed by the respondent No.
2 against the petitioner does not suffer from any illegality, as having
been passed strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of the
PSA. He submitted that compelling circumstances were made out, in
view of the activities of the petitioner, for her preventive detention
with a view to keep her away from acting in any manner prejudicial
to the security of the State. He contended that as per the grounds of
detention basing the impugned order, the petitioner-detenue was
engaged in unlawful activities. providing clandestine logistic support
to the terrorists by leaking the information leading to the escape of
terrorists during so many planned cordons andraids of the security
forces. That petitioner's husband has already crossed LOC and has
gone to Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, where he is engaged in
unlawful activities.
That having regard to her place of residence being in a high
altitude forest area, she, on the pretext of grazing animals, used to
provide support to the terrorists. The learned counsel submitted that
preventive detention as opposed to criminal prosecution is made on
the reasonable apprehension of an individual regarding his
involvement in activities prejudicial to the security of the State or
maintenance of public order. That a preventive detention can be
passed even without or with the prosecution. The learned
Government Advocate in support of his contentions placed reliance
on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited as"Haradhan
Saha vs. State of West Bengal and Ashok Kumar vs. Delhi
Administration and Ors. AIR 1982 SC 1143".
7. Perused the record of the instant petition. Also perused the
detention record produced by the learned Govt. Advocate.
8. Keeping in view the perusal of the record and the
consideration of the rival arguments of the learned counsel for the
parties, in the light of the law on the subject, this Court is of the
opinion that the impugned detention order suffers from illegality. As
rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-detenue,
the allegations against the petitioner regarding her involvement in
unlawful activities appear to be bald as the grounds of detention are
not based on any supporting substance/documents.
9. The learned detaining authority in his grounds of detention
has not referred to any specific allegation against the petitioner, in
terms of any incident/occurrence. The grounds of detention, which
are nothing but a replica of the police dossier, reveal the suspicion of
the Government regarding the commission of unlawful activities by
the detenue. The learned Detaining Authority has not referred to any
criminal case having been ever registered against the petitioner
regarding her alleged commission of unlawful activities. Daily Diary
Reports, copies whereof are enclosed with the grounds of detention,
do not reveal any specific physical act of the detenue. The daily
diary reports pertain to the duty discharged by the police personnel.
Secondly the grounds of detention apparently look to be the replica
of the police dossier meaning thereby that the impugned detention
order has been passed without application of mind on the part of the
learned detaining authority. It is needful to mention that even in his
reply affidavit, the learned detaining authority has, at Paras 1 to 4,
reproduced the police dossier in the same phraseology.
10. The report of the Executing Officer regarding execution of
PSA warrant and the receipt of the detention record on the part of the
detenue is cyclostyled.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner during his arguments,
inter alia, submitted that the copies of the detention record were not
furnished to the detenue at the time of her arrest in the Police Station
Basantgarh Udhampur but, same came to be furnished to her brother-
in-law when he came to see her after few days of her detention in the
District Jail, Amphalla, Jammu.
12. This Court is in agreement with the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that in case where there is no specific
allegation against the detenue in terms of incident and the time and
place thereof, there can be no meaningful explanation made to such
allegations.
13. This court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is of
the opinion that in the absence of any specific allegation against the
detenue in terms of any act or occurrence, it cannot at all be
considered whether there was a live-link or proximity between the
said alleged act and the need for passing of the detention order.
14. This Court is fully conscious of the fact that security of the
State is of paramount consideration and the liberty of an individual
can be curtailed strictly in accordance with the law in the interest of
the security of the State. It is also accepted position of law that the
object of preventive detention is to prevent an individual from acting
in any manner prejudicial to the interests of the security of the State
or of public orderand not to punish him but at all, there should be
some material or data constituting specific allegation(s), before
passing a detention order.
15. The petitioner being a lady is reported to be facing detention
under the impugned detention order since last about 10 months.
16. For the foregoing discussion, there seems to be merit in the
instant petition, which is allowed. The impugned detention order
bearing no. 09-PSA-2024 dated 29.11.2024 passed by the respondent
No. 2 i.e. District Magistrate, Udhampur, is quashed with the
direction to the respondents to release the petitioner-detenue
forthwith from her detention in the case in hand.
17. Detention record is ordered to be returned to the ld. GA.
(MOHD YOUSUF WANI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
24.09.2025
"Shahid Manzoor"
Whether the judgement is speaking Yes
Whether approved for law reporting Yes
