S. No.62 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU HCP No.57/2025 Reserved on: 18.09.2025 Pronounced on: 09.10.2025 Puttu, Age 21 years S/O Gami Din, R/O Ward No.7, Near GMS Dhanu Parole, Billawar Tehsil Lohai Malhar, District Kathua through his Mother Shallo Begum ….Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through :- Mr. Arshid Pervaiz Malik, Advocate. V/S 1. The Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through Principal Secretary to Govt., Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu. 2. District Magistrate, Kathua. 3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Kathua. 4. Superintendent, District Jail, Udhampur. ….Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MA CHOWDHARY, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner namely Puttu, S/O Gami Din, R/O Ward No.7, Near GMS Dhanu Parole, Billawar, Tehsil Lohai Malhar, District Kathua (for short ‘the detenue’) has challenged the detention Order No.PSA/144 dated 10.02.2025 (impugned order), issued by respondent No.2, District Magistrate, Kathua (hereinafter to be referred as “the detaining authority”), whereby he has been placed under preventive detention, in order to prevent him, from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of ‘public order’. 2 HCP No.57/2025 2. Petitioner has raised many grounds to assail the impugned order. It is his contention that Detaining Authority has not whispered about the bail application in which detenue had been admitted on bail; that the detenue was not informed of his right to filing representation to the detaining authority, much less indicating time period within which, the representation has to be made; that the impugned detention order and grounds of detention are in violation of the J&K Public Safety Act; that the detaining authority has acted as a post office and has not drawn any subjective satisfaction, thereby, without applying the mind has passed the impugned detention order; that whole of the material which forms basis of grounds of detention has not been supplied to the detenue and the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague. Lastly, it is prayed that the petition be allowed and the impugned detention order be set aside. 3. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, has repudiated the averments made in the petition and submitted that the detenue is an Over Ground Worker (OGW), involved in anti social/anti national activities and has links with the anti national activists/agencies, a great sympathizer of banned terrorist organizations who provides all possible help like transportation, internet, food and shelter to the terrorists of different banned outfits; that the detenue was responsible for law and order problem; that detenue was willingly inclined towards militancy and was voluntarily providing logistic support to the militants; that he was also instrumental in providing information about the movement of security forces etc as result of which many cordon and search operations (CASOs) were unsuccessful; that the detenue is continuously indulging in subversive activities in the area and has created terror among the peace loving people of the area; that the detenue has become a chronic anti national and created a fear of insecurity 3 HCP No.57/2025 among the peace loving people of the area; that in view of above character of the detenue, it was imperative to detain the detenue under preventive detention; that he has rightly been detained under preventive detention in terms of clause (b) of sub section (3) of Section 8 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. 4. Respondents have further contended that the criminal activities of the detenue are prejudicial to the safety and security of the public in general, as a result, maintenance of public order has become very difficult; that the detention warrant along with grounds of detention was properly executed through PSI Ranbir Singh, Incharge Police Post Ramkot, Kathua under proper acknowledgement of the detenue and he was fully made to understand the contents thereon in the language he understands; that the detenue was also informed that he can make representation to the Govt. as well as detaining authority against the detention order, if he so desires; that whole of the material was duly supplied to the detenue, lastly, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed and the impugned detention order be upheld as the same has strictly been passed, in terms of the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act. The respondents have produced the detention records in order to lend support to the contentions raised in the counter affidavit. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the detention record and considered. 6. Insofar as the plea raised by the detenue that the material relied upon by the detaining authority has not been supplied to him is concerned, the respondents disputed the same by asserting that the detention warrant of said detenue has been executed on 06.03.2025, that as per Record, detenue receieved copy of warrant (02) leaves, grounds of detention along with letter in English 4 HCP No.57/2025 consisting of 05 leaves, Dossier (06) leaves, FIR, Statements along with other documents (12 leaves), total 25 leaves, through executing officer PSI Ranbir Singh P/S Billawar (Kathua); that it was further revealed that contents of grounds of detention have been read over and explained to the detenue in his own language i.e. Dogri/Urdu which he fully understood on 06.03.2025. The said receipt of grounds of detention is attested by Assistant Superintendent, District Jail, Udhampur, under the acknowledgement of the detenue. 7. It is shown in the grounds of detention that the impugned detention order is passed by the detaining authority, on the basis of dossier submitted by the SSP concerned wherein 03 complaints and 03 Daily Diary Reports (DDRs) recorded against the detenue at Billawar Police Station, showing that the detenue has become incorrigible secessionist, a nuisance for the State and staunch facilitator of terrorist activities and there is dire need to prevent him from carrying out anti national activities without any respect of substantive law, thus, disturbing the peace and tranquility of the area and maintenance of law and order in District Kathua. Keeping in view the activities of the detenue, the Detaining Authority after due application of mind, by arriving at subjective satisfaction, issued the impugned order of detention, which cannot be found fault with. 8. It is settled proposition of law that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has a limited scope to scrutinize the detention order, passed on the material placed before it, and it cannot go further and examine the sufficiency of material. This Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the Detaining Authority and cannot substitute its opinion over that of detaining authority when the grounds of detention are precise, pertinent, proximate and relevant [See State of Punjab v. Sukhpal 5 HCP No.57/2025 Singh, (1990) 1 SCC 35]. The power of preventive detention is a precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation. It may or may not relate to an offence. The order of preventive detention may be made before or during prosecution and the pendency of the prosecution is not a bar to an order of preventive detention and is also not a bar to prosecution. The power of preventive detention is different from punitive detention. In a prosecution, the accused is sought to be punished for his past acts, however, in preventive detention the past act is merely a material for drawing inference about future conduct of the detenue. 9. The aim of the preventive detention is not to punish a person for having done something but to intercept and prevent him from doing so. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India & Ors [(2005) 8 SCC 276] and Union of India & Anr v. Dimple Happy Dhakad [AIR 2019 SC 3428] has held that “an order of detention is not a curative or reformative or punitive action, but a preventive action, avowed object of which being, to prevent anti-social and subversive elements from imperiling welfare of the country or security of the nation from disturbing public tranquility or from indulging in illegal activities or from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances etc. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it, and to prevent him from doing so.” The law of preventive detention has direct bearing on the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. The subjective satisfaction of a Detaining Authority, whether to detain a person or not, is not open to the objective assessment by a Court. The Court while exercising powers under Article 226 is not to act as an 6 HCP No.57/2025 appellate forum to scrutinize the merits of the administrative decision to detain a person. The Court cannot substitute its own satisfaction for that of the authority concerned and decide whether its satisfaction was reasonable or proper, or whether in the circumstances of the matter, the person concerned should have been detained or not. 10. It is apt to mention that our Constitution undoubtedly guarantees various freedoms and personal liberty to citizens in our Republic, however, such freedoms guaranteed by the Constitutional mandate are not meant to be abused and misused so as to endanger and threaten the very foundation of our society. The larger interests of our nation as a whole and the cause of preserving for every person the guaranteed freedoms demands reasonable restrictions on the prejudicial activities of individuals who jeopardize the rightful freedoms of the rest of the society. The main object of preventive detention is the security of the State, maintenance of public order and of supplies and services essential to the community. Detention order, which has been issued by the detaining authority after arriving at subjective satisfaction, does not suffer from any legal infirmity as the grounds of detention are definite, proximate and free from any ambiguity. Furthermore, the detenue was duly informed of what weighed with the detaining authority while passing the order of detention. The Detaining Authority has recorded its subjective satisfaction after considering the entire material available, thus, none of the constitutional or statutory provision has been violated. 11. So far as the contention of the detenue that he was prevented from making representation to the detaining authority as well as government as the documents supplied to the detenue were not read over and explained in the language he understands is concerned, the respondents have placed on record the 7 HCP No.57/2025 execution report of the executing officer PSI Ranbir Singh, Incharge Police Post Ramkot, Kathua and the receipt of grounds of detention, a perusal whereof would show that the above requirement of supplying the whole documents to the petitioner and their explanation in the language the petitioner understands has duly been complied with. Thus, contention of the petitioner that he was unable to file representation in view of non supply of whole material and also that executing officer has not explained the contents of the detention warrant and grounds of detention in the language he had no knowledge as also being oblivious about the contents of the so called material supplied, pales into insignificance. 12. The challenge to the detention order, in the considered opinion of the court by taking into account the above facts as emerged from the record, fails on all fours. The above conspectus of things would goad this court to the only inescapable conclusion that the respondents have rightly detained the detenue under the Public Safety Act, in view of strong apprehension and serious allegations levelled against the petitoner in the grounds of detention, of which he has potential. 13. The Detaining Authority has applied its mind by going through all the material, past conduct of the detenue against whom 03 complaints & 03 DDRs stand registered/entered, disclosing offences of serious nature and accordingly, arrived at subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenue were prejudicial to the interest of the State and issued the order of detention, which cannot be found fault with. Since the activities of the detenue were directed against the object mentioned in the Act and the Detaining Authority has arrived at subjective satisfaction that it was necessary to prevent the detenue from acting 8 HCP No.57/2025 in such manner and consequently, order of detention came to be issued. Thus, it clearly shows that it is satisfaction of the Government on the point, which alone is necessary to be established. 14. Liberty of an individual has to be curtailed, within reasonable bounds, for the good of the society at large. The framers of the Constitution were conscious of the practical need of preventive detention with a view to strike a just and delicate balance between need and necessity to preserve individual liberty on one hand, and security of the country as well as the interest of society on the other hand. Security of State, maintenance of public order, prevention of drug trafficking and other criminal activities demand effective safeguards in the larger interest of the sustenance of a peaceful and democratic way of life. The personal liberty may be curtailed, where a person faces a criminal charge or is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment. Where a person is facing the trial on a criminal charge and is temporarily deprived of his personal liberty because of the criminal charge framed against him, he has an opportunity to defend himself and to be acquitted of the charge in case the prosecution fails to bring home his guilt. Where such an accused is convicted of offence, he still has satisfaction of having been given the adequate opportunity to file appeal against his conviction. 15. The incorporation of Article 22 in the Constitution left room for detention of person without a formal charge and trial and without such person held guilty of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment by a competent Court. Its aims and objects are to save the society from activities that are likely to deprive a large number of people of their right to life and personal liberty. In such a case, it would be dangerous for the people at large, to wait and watch, by 9 HCP No.57/2025 the time ordinary law is set into motion, the person having dangerous designs, would execute his plans, exposing the general public to risk, causing colossal damage to life and property. It is for that reason necessary to take preventive measures and subsequently, prevent the person bent upon to perpetuate mischief from translating his ideas into actions. Therefore, where individual liberty comes into conflict with an interest of the security of the State or public order, then the liberty of individual must give way to the larger interest of the nation, as has been laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Fulchand v. Union of India (2003) 3 SCC 409. 16. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Subrati alias Mohd. Karim v. State of West Bengal (1973)3 SCC 250, has held as under:- “7. No doubt, the right to personal liberty of an individual is zealously protected by our Constitution but this liberty is not absolute and is not to be understood to amount to licence to indulge in activities which wrongfully and unjustly deprive the community or the society of essential services and supplies. The right of the society as a whole is, from its very nature, of much greater importance than that of an individual. In case of conflict between the two rights, the individual’s right is subjected by our Constitution to reasonable restrictions in the larger interest of the society.” 17. Personal liberty is one of the most cherished freedoms, perhaps more important than the other freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. It was for this reason that the framers of the Constitution included the safeguards in Article 22 in the Constitution so as to limit the power of the State to detain a person without trial, which may otherwise pass the test of Article 21, by humanizing the harsh authority over individual liberty. In a democracy governed by the rule of 10 HCP No.57/2025 law, the drastic power to detain a person without trial for security of the State and/or maintenance of public order, must be strictly construed. However, where individual liberty comes into conflict with an interest of the security of the State or public order, then the liberty of the individual must give way to the larger interest of the nation. 18. Viewed thus, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned order of detention. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed, as such. 19. The detention record be returned to the respondents through their counsel. Jammu: 09.10.2025 RaJ Kumar (MA CHOWDHARY) JUDGE Whether the order is speaking? Yes Whether the order is reportable? Yes I pronounce this judgment today, in terms of Rule 138(3) of the J&K High Court Rules, 1999. Jammu: 09.10.2025 (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE Surinder Kumar 2025.10.09 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document