Safiya Malik

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, Single Bench of Justice Rahul Bharti quashed a two-year preventive detention order citing procedural lapses and legal infirmities. The judgment, delivered on April 24, 2025, directed the immediate release of the petitioner from detention and issued a stern directive to the District Magistrate to expedite compliance without delay.

The petitioner, Shakir Nabi Gojri alias Shakir, aged 19 years, had approached the High Court through his sister Mst. Saima Bano by way of a habeas corpus petition. The grievance stemmed from a preventive detention order No. 32/DMB/PSA/2023 dated May 8, 2023, issued by the District Magistrate, Baramulla under Section 8(1)(a)(i) of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The order alleged that the petitioner’s activities were prejudicial to the security of the state.

Also Read: "Calculated Cold-Blooded Murders" and "Unquestionably Foreclosed Rehabilitation": Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence to Life Imprisonment in Kerala Familicide Case

The preventive detention was initially for six months and was later periodically extended, with the final extension vide Government Order No. Home/PB-V/2126 of 2024 dated November 7, 2024, continuing the detention till May 9, 2025. The petitioner was held at Central Jail Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.

The petitioner challenged the legality of the detention, asserting that he had no criminal antecedents and was a street vendor supporting his parents. He claimed that he was never provided with the dossier based on which the detention was ordered and that his representation against the detention remained unconsidered.

The court noted that the petitioner submitted a representation dated August 8, 2023, which received no meaningful response. He filed the habeas corpus petition on October 17, 2023, after serving nearly five months in preventive custody.

In their response, the authorities justified the detention based on a dossier submitted by the SSP, Baramulla. The grounds of detention mirrored the language of the dossier, alleging that the petitioner was linked to terrorist groups and engaged in activities threatening national security.

The grounds stated, "you have voluntarily developed contacts with various terrorists/secessionist organizations...you are in touch with anti-national elements and have been taking instructions from them." The dossier also alleged that "you are an important identified arm of the terror ecosystem currently in operation in J&K."

Justice Rahul Bharti examined the legality of the detention and found several grave procedural lapses. The Court observed: "The first anomaly which vitiated the preventive detention of the petitioner from the very outset is that the grounds of detention and dossier are mirror image of each other..."

It was recorded that the grounds of detention lacked independent application of mind and were essentially a reproduction of the dossier submitted by the police. The Court further noted: "There is no shade of distinction between the dossier and the grounds of detention... the petitioner was and is having no trace of a criminal antecedent..."

The judgment severely criticized the authorities for their failure to supply the dossier to the petitioner: "The very fact that the petitioner was not served with a copy of the dossier is a pointer that the respondent... did not intend to enable the petitioner to bear an insight into the dossier..."

The Court stated that only four pages (order of detention, notice, and two leaves of grounds) were handed to the petitioner, which compromised his right to make an effective representation: "The petitioner’s effective right of representation was seriously compromised... leaving it for the petitioner to stay in guess as to what led to his preventive detention..."

Also Read: “‘Lease for Ten Years Only’: Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction of Hindustan Steelworks, Dismisses Appeal Under Public Premises Act”

Regarding the fate of the representations made by the petitioner, the Court found another serious lapse: "The petitioner’s representations... have gone begging for consideration and response... In the counter affidavit, not even a whisper of word has been stated..."

The Court concluded: "In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances... the preventive detention... was malice in law, misconceived and baseless which warrants quashment without further loss of time."

The Court issued the following directions:

1. "Preventive detention order No. 32/DMB/PSA/2023 dated 8th of May, 2023... are hereby quashed."

2. "The petitioner is directed to be restored to his personal liberty. Superintendent Central Jail Varanasi... is directed to release the petitioner forthwith."

3. "The respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Baramulla is directed to ensure that a docket is sent immediately... by or before 25th of April, 2025..."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. S. T. Hussain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Nida Nazir, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Hakeem Aman Ali, Deputy Advocate General

Case Title: Shakir Nabi Gojri @ Shakir v. Government of J&K and Ors.

Case Number: HCP No. 123/2023

Bench: Justice Rahul Bharti

[Read/Download order]