Page | 1 HCP 188/2025 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR HCP 188/2024 Reserved on : 18.09.2025 Pronounced on : 30.09.2025 Javid Ahmad Najar, @ Ghazi Javid Aged 18 Years S/O , Ghulam Mohi ud Din Najar R/O Khawaja Mohalla, Walerhama Tehsil Langate, District Kupwara Through His Father, Gh. Mohi Ud Din Najar S/O Ali Mohd Najar R/O Khawaja Mohalla, Walerhama Tehsil Langate, District Kupwara Jammu and Kashmir Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. I. Sofi, Advocate Vs. 1. Union Territory of J&K through Principal Secretary to Govt Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar 2. District Magistrate, Kupwara Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE. JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, Gh. Mohi Ud Din Najar, Father of Javid Ahmad Najar @ Ghazi Javid S/O Gh. Mohi Ud Din Najar, R/O Khawaja Mohalla, Walerhama, Tehsil Langate, District Kupwara, (hereinafter to be referred as “detenue”), to assail order No 07/DMK/PSA of 2024 dated 27.04.2024, (hereinafter to be referred as “impugned order”), passed by Respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Kupwara, whereby, the detenue has been detained under Section 8 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 and lodged in Central Jail, Kotbhalwal, Jammu. FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. The detenue is stated to have been arrested by Police Station Handwara on 27.02.2024, and while being in detention, was detained under preventive detention in terms of the impugned order. The detenue is pleaded to have been Page | 2 HCP 188/2025 confined wrongfully in custody from 27.02.2024 by police concerned till 27.04.2024, the date of the issuance of the impugned order. The petitioner pleads that the impugned order is bad in law, therefore, assails the same inter alia, on the grounds that the detenue has not been furnished the material on the basis whereof the impugned order has been passed to enable him to move a representation against his detention to the Government or to the detaining authority; the allegations levelled against the detenue are cryptic and vague; the representation made by the petitioner on the basis of whatever documents he was provided, was not appreciated in its right perspective by the Government; the respondents have not spelled out as to which of the activities, allegedly carried out by the detenue on social media platforms, have been found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of security of state; the respondent No. 2 has not applied its mind independently to the facts of the case; the respondents do not point out anywhere as to what were the circumstances which made the detaining authority believe or derive satisfaction inasmuch as the activities undertaken by the detenue after he was bound down in terms of Section 107/151 Cr.P.C; despite order of bail granted by Executive Magistrate Ist Class, Qalamabad, the detenue was not released from custody; the impugned order has been passed while the detenue was in the police custody; no reason has been given as to why and how the ordinary law was insufficient to deter the detenue from indulging in the alleged subversive activities; the allegations attributed to the detenue are imaginary, based on surmises and are false, baseless and concocted; the detention has not been approved within the time frame provided for in the statute; the grounds of detention are the replica of police dossier; the detenue was minor at the time of his arrest, therefore, the police custody of the detenue in the police station concerned till 02.05.2024, when he attained the age of majority, is wholly illegal, etcetera. Page | 3 HCP 188/2025 3. Upon notice, the respondents appeared and filed counter affidavit and resisted the claim of the petitioner inter alia, on the grounds that the impugned order is legal, justified and well-reasoned; the safeguards provided for in the Act have been complied with; the detaining authority has derived its satisfaction as regards the subversive activities of the detenue and the requirement of placing him under preventive detention; the individual interest must give way for larger interests of nation; the detenue was provided with entire material of detention and he was made aware of his right to make a representation against his detention; the material was provided to him in the language he understands; the detenue is an active over-ground worker of banned terrorist organization LeT and ISJK outfits and is motivating youth of the area to join militancy; the detenue is a threat for a smooth conduct of parliamentary elections as per the intelligence reports; the detenue, being a constant threat to the security of UT of J&K, especially when the parliamentary elections are ahead, any untoward act of terrorists will jeopardize the democratic process, etcetera. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the detention record made available by the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. The detention record would indicate that the detenue has been provided in as many as 19 leaves of detention record comprising of Copy of Warrant (01 leaf), Grounds of detention (02 leaves), Notice to the detenue (01 leaf), Letter addressed to the Principal Secretary to the Govt. Home Deptt., J&K (01 leaf), Copy of dossier with covering letter (03 leaves), copy of istigasa u/s 107,151 Cr.P.C (06 leaves) and Translation copy of detention order in Urdu (05 leaves), therefore, the plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition that the detenue was not provided the entire detention material cannot be accepted being against the records. Page | 4 HCP 188/2025 6. The perusal of the detention record would also reveal that the detenue has been detained under preventive detention by the respondents after having found his activities to be prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of state inasmuch as the detenue is believed to be using the social media platforms for terror activities, however, the record is silent in specifying such activities. The ground of challenge taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner against the impugned order to this extent carries weight and is accepted. 7. The detention record further reveals that there is no FIR registered against the detenue for any of his alleged subversive acts and yet he is detained by invoking special law. 8. One of the grounds taken in support of the impugned order by the respondents is that the detention of the detenue is warranted for the smooth conduct of parliamentary elections. Although the activities of the detenue are not specified, making it difficult for one to believe as to how the detenue has been seen as a threat for the smooth conduct of parliamentary elections, yet for the sake of arguments, even if it is presumed that the detenue has been a threat for the smooth conduct of parliamentary elections, the same cannot be put to use, for all times to come, even after the said elections are way over. The learned counsel for the petitioner in that sense is justified in submitting that since the parliamentary elections are way over, therefore, the detention order of the detenue, on the said ground, has lost significance. 9. Going by the contents of the counter affidavit as also the detention records, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the detenue has been only alleged to be an over-ground worker of banned militant outfits and is motivating youth towards anti-national activities, without, however, specifying the details of the said activities inasmuch as the particulars of those who were motivated and when such activity took place with what result, etcetera. Page | 5 HCP 188/2025 10. Having regard to what has been said hereinbefore, this Court feels convinced that the respondents have, in all probability, detained the detenue on mere apprehensions of him being the possible threat for the smooth conduct of the parliamentary elections of 2024, as nothing substantive in exclusion thereof is coming forth. Since the parliamentary elections in question have been smoothly conducted much earlier than time, therefore the continued detention of the detenue appears to be unwarranted. 11. The detaining authority ought to have applied its mind as regards the contents of the police dossier recommending preventive detention of the detenue and derive subjective satisfaction independently of its own. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not a mere formality but is a constitutional mandate that has to be complied with, while issuing the detention order. The Apex court has consistently reprimanded the concerned authorities for violating such an important safeguard. 12. The Apex Court in case titled ‘Ameena Begum vs. State of Telangana’, reported as (2023) 9 SCC 587, has held that the detention order cannot sustain if the detaining authority has failed to arrive at a subjective satisfaction as regards the detention of the detenue. It would be profitable to reproduce paragraph No. 28 of the said judgment hereinbelow: “28……In the circumstances of a given case, a Constitutional Court when called upon to test the legality of orders of preventive detention would be entitled to examine whether (i) the order is based on the requisite satisfaction, albeit subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the absence of such satisfaction as to the existence of a matter of fact or law, upon which validity of the exercise of the power is predicated, would be the sine qua non for the exercise of the power not being satisfied; (ii) in reaching such requisite satisfaction, the detaining authority has applied its mind to all relevant circumstances Page | 6 HCP 188/2025 and the same is not based on material extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute; (iii) power has been exercised for achieving the purpose for which it has been conferred, or exercised for an improper purpose, not authorised by the statute, and is therefore ultra vires; (iv) the detaining authority has acted independently or under the dictation of another body; (v) the detaining authority, by reason of self-created rules of policy or in any other manner not authorized by the governing statute, has disabled itself from applying its mind to the facts of each individual case; (vi) the satisfaction of the detaining authority rests on materials which are of rationally probative value, and the detaining authority has given due regard to the matters as per the statutory mandate; (vii) the satisfaction has been arrived at bearing in mind existence of a live and proximate link between the past conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain him or is based on material which is stale; (viii) the ground(s) for reaching the requisite satisfaction is/are such which an individual, with some degree of rationality and prudence, would consider as connected with the fact and relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry in respect whereof the satisfaction is to be reached; (ix) the grounds on which the order of preventive detention rests are not vague but are precise, pertinent and relevant which, with sufficient clarity, inform the detenu the satisfaction for the detention, giving him the opportunity to make a suitable representation; and (x) the timelines, as provided under the law, have been strictly adhered to.” 13. In view of above and taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Apex court in the judgment supra, the petition succeeds and is allowed as such. As a result thereof, the impugned order dated 27.04.2024, bearing No. 07/DMK/PSA of 2024, passed by Respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Kupwara, whereby the detenue has been detained under preventive detention, is Page | 7 HCP 188/2025 quashed. The detenue namely, Javid Ahmad Najar @ Ghazi Javid S/O Gh. Mohi Ud Din Najar, R/O Khawaja Mohalla, Walerhama, Tehsil Langate, District Kupwara, is directed to be released from preventive custody forthwith. 14. The detention records be returned to learned counsel for the respondents against receipt. 15. Disposed of. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 30.09.2025 “Misba ”  Whether the Judgment is Reportable? No.  Whether the Judgment is Speaking? Yes