Preventive Detentions Care Jammu Kashmir Ladakh High Court Releases

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has said that “preventive detentions need to be passed with great care and caution” as it directed the release of a man accused of giving “logistical support to terrorists”.

Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani were hearing the plea of a man who had been detained by the police for allegedly providing logistical support to terrorist organisations and being in constant contact with his brother who was an active terrorist.

“The preventive detentions need to be passed with great care and caution, keeping in mind that a citizen’s most valuable and inherent human right is being curtailed. The arrests in general and the preventive detentions in particular are an exception to the most cherished fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the August 6 order read.

The high court further observed that “constitutional mandate regarding information to the petitioner/detenu that he has a right to make representation to the detaining authority or to the Government in respect of his preventive detention is not to be taken as a mere formality by making mention of the words…but is meant to be followed with utmost fairness, responsibility and accountability having regard to the fact that detenu’s fundamental right to life and personal liberty is being curtailed on account of his apprehended conduct.”

The man alleged that he was arrested without any explanation by the Shopian Police Station, after which a detention order dated September 12, 2024, was passed against him by the authorities, and he was consequently shifted to the Baramulla District Jail for preventive detention. The man contended that he had never indulged in any unlawful activity or provided any logistic support to the terrorists.

He further claimed that he was a college student and that his father’s health had gotten worse since his arrest in September 2024 and that there was no source of maintaining his family as he was the only son of his parents. According to the man, his brother, had already been killed on May 13, 2025, to whom he was accused of providing logistic support. The man had also challenged his detention before the high court, but his plea was dismissed on November 8, 2025.

The high court noted that none of the allegations against the man were supported by the registration of any case FIR or even by making an entry in the registers of any police station. The high court was of the view that, such “heinous” allegations were not believable because there was no legal action against the man under the normal criminal law. The high court also noted that allegations against him appeared to be “vague” and were not only without any proof, but also without any reference to the date and time.

According to the high court, the grounds of detention looked “ditto” like the police documents, which showed non-application of mind on the part of the authority. The high court also observed that “a careful perusal of the detention order and also of the following communication order, conjointly reveals that the appellant/detenue (the man) has not been informed in clear and unambiguous terms regarding his right to make a representation at an earliest to the detaining authority as also to the Government.”

Accordingly, the high court set aside the previous judgment and directed the authorities to release the man from his preventive detention provided that he was not involved in any other case.

Advocates BA Tak and Muzaffer Mohi Ud Din, representing the man, argued that the grounds of detention were copied from the document submitted by the police to the authority, which meant that there was no “application of mind” in the detention order. The counsel contended that the authorities initially did not consider the representation filed on behalf of the man, and when it was considered, it was rejected without informing him.

According to the counsel, he was also not given a copy of the detention record in its entirety, which prevented him from making an effective representation as soon as possible. The counsel urged that the grounds of detention mainly accused the man of providing logistic support to his brother, who was a terrorist, but the brother had already been killed on May 13, 2025.

Deputy Advocate General Bikramdeep Singh, appearing for the state, argued that the young man had a primary role in past terror attacks that took place in district Shopian. According to the counsel, the man had become a well-known worker for terrorist organisations like Lashkar-e-Taiba and The Resistance Front. The counsel also submitted that he was the brother of an active terrorist and was actively involved in providing a variety of logistic support to the terrorists.

The counsel contended that the man was doing his acts secretly, which gave no occasion to the authorities to deal with him under the normal law, and that the copies of the detention record were given to him, and he was also informed about the grounds of his detention. The counsel stated that the detention order was passed after proper application of mind.