J&K High Court quashes PSA detention of Poonch resident, says ordinary law sufficient
Srinagar, KNT: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed the preventive detention of a Poonch resident under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, holding that the allegations relied upon by the authorities did not justify invoking the extraordinary power of preventive detention.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while setting aside the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Poonch, held that the detaining authority had failed to properly appreciate the distinction between “public order” and “law and order”.
The case concerned Muhammad Yousuf, a resident of Poonch, who was detained under the Public Safety Act in April 2026.
The authorities had relied upon four FIRs registered between 2018 and 2026 while passing the detention order. The cases included allegations arising from an altercation with a Panchayat employee, a dispute linked to previous enmity, an altercation during a wedding function and an assault case in which a person sustained injuries.
The authorities as per the news agency Kashmir News Trust argued that the cases demonstrated a pattern of conduct and justified preventive detention to prevent Yousuf from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Yousuf’s wife challenged the detention before the High Court, arguing that the cases involved individual disputes and did not provide sufficient grounds for invoking preventive detention under the PSA.
The High Court accepted the substance of the challenge and held that the allegations, even if taken at their face value, could be addressed through the ordinary criminal justice system.
The court observed that preventive detention could not be used where ordinary criminal law provided sufficient means to deal with the situation.
The judgment emphasized that an act affecting law and order does not automatically amount to an act affecting public order. The two concepts operate in different spheres and the distinction assumes particular importance when authorities exercise the extraordinary power of preventive detention.
The court also examined the material placed before the detaining authority and found that the grounds relied upon did not establish the required connection between the alleged conduct and maintenance of public order.
Accordingly, the detention order was set aside and the court directed that Yousuf be released from preventive detention, subject to his involvement in any other case in which his custody was lawfully required. [KNT]
