HCP No. 102/2025 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 03.08.2026 Pronounced on: 07.08.2026 Uploaded on: 07.08.2026 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full HCP No.102/2025 UMER JABBAR DAR ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Wajid Haseeb, Advocate. Vs. UT OF J&K AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. Jahingeer Ahmad Dar, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has challenged detention order bearing No. 27/DMP/PSA/25 dated 03.05.2025, issued by District Magistrate, Pulwama, whereby the detenue, namely, Umer Jabbar Dar, has been placed under preventive detention so as to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State. 2) It has been contended that the allegations/grounds of detention are vague and mere assertions on the basis of which no prudent man can make an effective representation. It has been contended that the allegations mentioned in the grounds HCP No. 102/2025 of detention have no nexus with the detenue and the same have been fabricated by the Police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the petitioner. It has been further contended that no fresh activity has been attributed to the petitioner in the grounds of detention after his release on bail in the year 2022. It has been contended that whole of the material forming basis of grounds of detention has not been furnished to the petitioner, as a result of which, he could not make an effective representation before the respondents. 3) The respondents have contested the writ petition and filed the counter affidavit. Respondent No. 2 (Detaining Authority), in its counter affidavit, has contended that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the Detaining Authority in the present case. The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It has been submitted that the impugned order of detention has been passed after deriving subjective satisfaction in the matter. It has also been submitted that the grounds of detention, order of detention as well as the entire material relied upon by the Detaining Authority have been furnished to the detenue well within the statutory period provided under Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act. It has also been submitted that the petitioner was well informed HCP No. 102/2025 about his right to make representation against his preventive detention to the Detaining Authority or to the Government. According to the respondents, there is no vagueness or staleness in the grounds of detention and that the same are precise, proximate and relevant. In order to lend support to their contentions, the respondents have produced the detention record. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case including the detention record produced by the respondents. 5) Although the petitioner has raised a number of grounds in the writ petition against his preventive detention, yet during the course of the arguments, the learned counsel has laid much emphasis on the ground that the grounds of detention are vague, lacking in material particulars, which has prevented the petitioner from making an effective and suitable representation against the impugned order of detention. 6) So far as the ground regarding vagueness of the grounds of detention is concerned, the same appears to be well founded. If we have a look at the grounds of detention, the activities attributed to the petitioner post his release on bail on 27.01.2022 are completely vague, lacking in material HCP No. 102/2025 particulars. In this regard, the relevant extracts of the grounds of detention are reproduced as under: “You have been an OGW of Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), assisting the shooters of the said outfit who have unleashed a spate of terror by killing persons who are soft targets like tourists, street vendors, labourers coming from outside Jammu and Kashmir working in orchards, small shops and commercial establishments, policemen who are off duty or un- armed. You have also been providing logistic support like food, shelter, clothes, information and facilitation of movement to the terrorists of banned terrorist organization Jaish-e-Mohammad(JeM) thereby making it easy to carry out subversive activities including carrying out attacks like one recently in Pahalgam in which as many as 26 innocent persons were killed brutally and score were injured for none of their fault.” 7) From a perusal of aforesaid quoted grounds of detention, it is clear that the Detaining Authority has not mentioned the particulars of the places where the petitioner is alleged to have assisted the terrorists nor the identity of the terrorists to whom the petitioner was allegedly providing logistics is mentioned in the grounds of detention. Even the particulars of the period during which the petitioner is alleged to have come in contact with these terrorists to provide logistic support to them are missing in the grounds of detention. Thus, the grounds being vague, lacking in material particulars, it was not possible for the petitioner to make an effective representation against his detention. 8) Article 22(5) of the Constitution mandates that each ground of detention must be individually specified and not vague, ensuring transparency and accountability in the HCP No. 102/2025 detention process. It is impossible for the detenue to understand the reasons of his detention, if the grounds are vague, indefinite or general in nature and this prevents a detenue from effectively challenging his preventive detention. 9) A Division Bench of this Court in the recent case titled “Imran Rashid Rather vs. UT of J&K” 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 351 has, while deliberating upon the effect of vagueness of the grounds of detention on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, observed as under:- “Therefore, this Court holds that vague and non- specific grounds of detention firstly, violates the fundamental right to life and personal liberty of the detenue under article 21 of the constitution as it summarily curtails the liberty of the citizen based on the subjective satisfaction of the executive which is an exceptional power as against the general law relating to arrest and detention. Secondly, it deprives the detenue of giving a specific rebuttal to the grounds of detention which may satisfy the detaining authority or the Government that his detention is unlawful and compels him to answer the grounds of detention as "it is incorrect" or "it is false" etc. Thirdly, vague and generalised grounds in the order of detention, smacks of arbitrariness on the part of the detaining authority rendering the subjective satisfaction arrived at as violative of article 14 of the constitution and fourthly, vague and non-specific grounds raise the impression that the same has been done deliberately in order to deprive the detenu of giving a precise rebuttal. Malafide in fact may be difficult to establish as they must be pleaded with specific facts, but the lack of bonafides 1State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma,1992 Supp(1) SCC 222, paragraph 49 - State of Punjab vs. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 471, paragraph 9 -Pooja Batra vs. Union of India and others, (2009) 5 SCC 296, paragraphs 18,40 and 41 may be presumed where the executive act results in the deprivation of personal liberty from a detention order based on vague grounds. In such HCP No. 102/2025 cases, the lack of bonafides is to be presumed due to a cavalier or casual exercise of the authority to detain the citizen without any specific ill will or personal animosity. The lack of bonafides is on account of failure to take due care and act without introspection, blindly on the report of the SP without insisting on supporting material which justifies the deprivation of liberty.” 10) From the above analysis of the law, it is manifest that vagueness of grounds of detention strikes at the root of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority thereby vitiating the order of detention. On this ground alone, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside. 11) For the afore-stated reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned detention order is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner from the preventive custody forthwith, provided he is not required in connection with any other case. 12) The detention record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar, 07.08.2026 “Bhat Altaf-Secretary” Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No