'Delay Is Fatal': HC Sets Aside Srinagar Man's PSA Detention

Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the detention of a Srinagar resident under the Public Safety Act (PSA). While reinforcing procedural safeguards in preventive detention cases, the court held that an unexplained delay in considering representation and failure to communicate the rejection violated petitioner's constitutional rights.

In a six-page judgment pronounced by the high court's division bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal, allowed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by Sharik Ahmad Bangroo and set aside both his detention order dated September 5, 2024 and the earlier writ court judgment that had upheld it. The court ordered that “the appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.”

The case arose from preventive detention proceedings initiated by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. Bangroo, represented by senior advocate S T Hussain with advocate Nida Nazir, had challenged his detention, while the Union Territory was represented by senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadri with assisting counsel Maha Majeed.

According to the court record, Bangroo was detained following a dossier submitted by police alleging that he had previously been bound down under preventive provisions of criminal law and was suspected of planning to form a gang to disrupt the 2024 Assembly elections.

The District Magistrate, Srinagar, acting on the police dossier and supporting material, issued the preventive detention order on September 5, 2024. Bangroo initially challenged the order through a habeas corpus petition, which was dismissed by a single judge on May 15, 2025, prompting him to file the present appeal before the division bench.

Bangroo’s petition focused on procedural lapses, particularly the government’s handling of representations submitted on his behalf. His counsel argued that authorities had failed to independently and expeditiously consider his representation, thereby rendering the detention legally unsustainable.

After examining the detention record, the division bench found merit in Bangroo’s challenge. The court noted that two representations had been submitted by Bangroo’s father, including one dated October 16, 2024, which was forwarded to the Additional Director General, CID J&K, for comments but was not rejected until December 5, 2024.

The judges held that this delay was both substantial and unexplained and that authorities had also failed to inform the detenue or his family about the rejection of the representation.

"This timeline indicates a substantial and unexplained delay in considering the representation. Furthermore, there is no evidence that either the appellant or his father was ever informed of this rejection. Such delay, coupled with the failure to communicate the decision to the detenu, is fatal to the detention order," the Court observed.

The bench emphasised that preventive detention laws, though granting wide powers to authorities, must be exercised strictly within constitutional and procedural safeguards.

In its ruling, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs District Magistrate, Jabalpur, which highlighted the importance of prompt consideration of detainee representations.

Quoting the apex court, the Division Bench reiterated that procedural safeguards are fundamental to preventive detention laws and cannot be disregarded.

The High Court stressed that delay in considering or communicating the outcome of a representation undermines the detainee’s rights and renders the detention legally untenable.

Apart from procedural lapses, the court also examined the underlying justification for Bangroo’s detention. The judges noted that the preventive detention was primarily based on apprehensions related to disruption of Assembly elections, which had already concluded.

"Since those elections have already concluded, a considerable period has elapsed, and the apprehension that the appellant may disrupt the electoral process has lost its relevance. Consequently, the live and proximate link between the appellant's past activities and the necessity for preventive detention has been severed, " the bench held.

The Division Bench also found fault with the earlier judgment of the writ court, observing that crucial procedural issues had not been properly examined. "A perusal of the judgment rendered by the learned writ Court reveals that the pivotal issues noticed by us hereinabove have escaped the consideration of the learned writ Court," the judges stated.

Terming that the detention violated legal safeguards, the Division Bench formally quashed the detention order and directed Bangroo’s release. "The order of detention (bearing order no. DMA/PSA/23/2024 dated 05.09.2024), issued by the District Magistrate, Srinagar… being unsustainable in law is, accordingly, quashed," the court ruled.

Also Read

1. 'Continued Custody Not Warranted After Chargesheet Filing': Srinagar Court Grants Bail To Accused In Nowhatta Drugs Recovery Case
2. Srinagar Court Acquits 3 Accused in 2020 CRPF Terror Attack Case, Cites Lack Evidence