J&K High Court Quashes NDPS Preventive Detention | Raps Srinagar SSP for ‘Contemptuous’ Remarks Against Judiciary in Dossier
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi quashed a preventive detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, citing vague grounds and lack of essential supporting material. The Court also took strong exception to objectionable and contemptuous remarks made by the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar, Imtiyaz Hussain, in the detention dossier, which were seen as undermining the judiciary’s authority and independence. Justice Kazmi directed the J&K Director General of Police to obtain an explanation from the officer and initiate appropriate action.
The petition was filed by wife on behalf of her husband, Riyaz Ahmad Channa, challenging a preventive detention order dated 20 December 2024 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS). Channa was detained in District Jail, Bhaderwah pursuant to this order.
The petitioner contended that the grounds for detention were vague, lacking specific details such as dates, places, and times of the alleged activities, and thus denied the detenue an effective opportunity to make a representation as required by Article 22(5) of the Constitution. It was further argued that several FIRs cited in the detention order had either been closed at the investigation stage or remained pending without charges, and that the detention order failed to mention the grant of bail in certain cases. The petitioner also claimed that vital documents, including copies of bail applications and orders, had not been supplied to the detenue.
The respondents maintained that the detention was validly ordered in accordance with the PIT NDPS Act and asserted that all necessary documents had been provided to the detenue, who had been informed of his right to challenge the detention. They argued that the preventive detention was necessitated to prevent the detenue from engaging in further illicit drug trafficking, despite his release on bail in some cases. The Advisory Board had reviewed the matter and confirmed the detention for a one-year period.
The evidence before the Court comprised the grounds of detention, the dossier prepared by the then Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Srinagar, copies of FIRs, and other supporting records. The Court noted that the dossier included remarks by the SSP alleging that judicial decisions had been influenced by the detenue’s power, which it described as objectionable and contemptuous. The Court directed the Director General of Police to seek an explanation from the officer and take appropriate action
Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi examined the submissions, documents, and legal precedents. The Court noted that the detenue’s counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Chaju Ram v. State of J&K (AIR 1971 SC 263), where it was held: “It would be impossible for anybody to make a representation against such grounds. These grounds… must be held to be vague. Therefore… there was no compliance with the law as laid down in the Jammu & Kashmir Preventive Detention Act. The result, therefore, is that the detention must be declared to be unlawful and Chaju must be declared to be entitled to his liberty.”
The Court further recorded the petitioner’s reliance on Rajinder Arora v. Union of India (AIR 2006 SC 1719), which struck down a detention order where vital material had been withheld, and A. Sowkath Ali v. Union of India (AIR 2006 SC 2662), holding that non-supply of bail applications and orders constituted violation of Article 22(5).
Justice Kazmi observed: “Failure to provide evidence like date, place and time by the detaining authority amounts to violation of fundamental rights of the detenue.” The Court noted that although certain documents were provided, the omission of details such as the detenue’s bail status in FIR No. 22/2019 was a significant lapse. The Court cited Chowdarapu Raghunandan v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2002 SC 1460) stating: “Preventive detention admittedly is an ‘invasion of personal liberty’ and it is a duty cast on the law Courts to satisfy itself in regard to the circumstances under which such a preventive detention has been ordered.”
The Court stated: “Preventive detention is, by nature, repugnant to democratic ideas and an anathema to the Rule of law. No such law exists in the USA and in England (except during war time).”
Justice Kazmi stated: “This is not expected of SSP, Srinagar to reflect his mind set in such a casual and cavalier manner in the dossier. He has not only expressed his opinion against the detenue but has raised aspersions/allegations against the judiciary, which is uncalled for.” The Court found the language to be “not only objectionable but contemptuous to say the least.”
Concluding the judgment, Justice Kazmi ordered: “Viewed thus, the petition is allowed and detention order No. DIVCOM “K”/221/2024 dated 20.12.2024… is quashed and the respondents are directed to release the detenue forthwith, if not required in any other case.”
The Court directed the Director General of Police, J&K to seek an explanation from the then SSP Srinagar, Mr. Imtiyaz Hussain, regarding the averments in the dossier, and to initiate action against him for attempting to demean the stature and integrity of the judiciary. The Registry was ordered to furnish a copy of the judgment to the Director General of Police for compliance, and the action taken was to be submitted to the Registry without fail. The Court also directed that the detention record be returned to the respondents’ counsel against receipt.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. B. A. Bashir, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rasic, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Nadiya Abdullah, AC vice Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Senior Advocate
Case Title: Riyaz Ahmad Channa through his wife v. UT of J&K and Ors.
Case Number: HCP No. 29/2025
Bench: Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
