1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR LPA No. 23/2025 Reserved on 03.07.2025 Pronounced on 11. 07.2025 Shahid Maqbool Bhat ……...Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad Makroo, Advocate Versus UT of J&K and Anr. …..Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Furqan Yaqub Sofi, GA CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE J U D G M E N T Per OSWAL ‘J’ 01. The appellant was detained vide order of detention bearing No. 46/DMP/PSA/2023 dated 04.08.2023, issued by the respondent No. 2, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 8 of J&K Public Safety Act (for short “the Act”) on the ground of activities of the appellant being prejudicial to the Security of the State. 02. The appellant, had assailed the order of detention through the medium of HCP No. 39/2023, but without any success, as the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the learned writ Court vide order dated 03.01.2025. Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 2 03. Being aggrieved of the order dated 03.01.2025, the appellant through the medium of this intra-court appeal has assailed the order dated 03.01.2025 on the following grounds: a. That the learned writ court has not rightly appreciated the fact that there was no live link between the incident, which formed the basis for issuance of order of detention, as the FIR No. 16/2020 under Sections 307 IPC, 3/4 Explosive Substance Act, was registered by Police Station, Pulwama in the year 2020 whereas, the detention order was issued in the month of August, 2023; b. That the learned writ court has also not considered the contention of the appellant in its right perspective that grounds of detention were cryptic, vague and the detenue was not explained the grounds of detention in his own language and also that he had a right to make a representation against his detention. The detaining authority in its reply affidavit had not stated that the entire material relied and referred to, has been provided to the detenue. c. That the learned writ court has also not considered and returned any finding as to whether the respondents considered the representation and whether the consideration order was actually received by the detenue and his father. d. That the learned writ court has not taken into consideration that the procedural safeguards, envisaged under Constitution of India and in terms of the Act have not been followed by the Detaining Authority. Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 3 04. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the order of detention has been issued on the stale grounds because the FIR was registered in the year 2020, whereas, the order of detention has been issued in the year 2023, as such, there was delay in passing the order of detention. He has also contended that the grounds of detention are vague, bereft of necessary details, which incapacitated the appellant to make an effective representation against his detention and that the learned writ Court has not returned any finding with regard to communicating the decision upon the representation submitted against the order of detention. 05. Per contra Mr. Furqan Yaqub Sofi, GA appearing counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that all the statutory as well as the constitutional safeguards have been meticulously followed by the respondents, not only at the time of issuance of order of detention, but also at the time when the order of detention was executed. He has laid much stress that representation submitted by the appellant was duly considered by the detaining authority, but was rejected vide order dated 11.08.2023, and the decision was duly communicated. He has also argued that the Advisory Board also considered the representation submitted by the father of the appellant, but did not find any substance in the same and rejected the representation, while opining in terms of order dated 23.08.2023, that the detention of the appellant is in conformity with the principles as enshrined under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Act. Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 4 06. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of detention. 07. The judgment impugned in this appeal depicts that the appellant had raised the following five grounds, before the learned writ Court: a. That the grounds of detention are based upon stale incidents having no proximity and nexus with the impugned order of detention. b. That the grounds of detention are vague, lacking in material particulars and on the basis of such grounds, the appellant could not have made an effective representation. c. That there has been non-application of the mind on the part of detaining authority, in as much as the grounds of detention are replica of police dossier. d. That whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has not been furnished to the appellant. e. That the representation made by the appellant against the impugned order of detention has not been considered. The learned writ court considered the grounds urged by the appellant for challenging the order of detention and dismissed the writ petition thereby, upholding the order of detention. 08. The first contention raised by the appellant before this court is that the appellant could not have been detained in the year 2023 on the basis of stale incident of the year 2020. A perusal of judgment impugned reveals that the learned writ court while rejecting the contention of the appellant that the order of detention was issued on stale incident, has observed that the incident of lobbing a hand grenade on Police Station, Pulwama pertains to year 2022 whereas, the fact remains that the said incident pertains to the year 2020. This is true that incident of the year 2020 regarding which FIR No. Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 5 16/2020, was registered and subsequently the appellant was found to be involved in the said incident, is stale in nature, but it is not the solitary incident which has weighed with the respondent No. 2, to detain the appellant. The order of detention of the appellant may not be sustainable in respect of the incident of the year 2020 but the other grounds are also required to be examined to examine the validity of order of detention and if it is found that the order of detention is sustainable on the other grounds, then the order of detention cannot be quashed. In this context, it would be apt to take note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gautam Jain v. Union of India, (2017) 3 SCC 133, wherein it has been held as under: 18. A glimpse of the nature of issue involved, and the arguments which are advanced by both the parties thereupon, makes it crystal clear that insofar as the legal position is concerned, there is no dispute, nor can there be any dispute in this behalf. Both the parties are at ad idem that if the detention order is based on more than one grounds, independent of each other, then the detention order will still survive even if one of the grounds found is non-existing or legally unsustainable (see Vashisht Narain Karwaria [Vashisht Narain Karwaria v. State of U.P ). On the other hand, if the detention order is founded on one composite ground, though containing various species or sub-heads, the detention order would be vitiated if such ground is found fault with (see A. Sowkath Ali v. Union of India ). Thus, in the instant case, outcome of the appeal depends upon the question as to whether detention order is based on one ground alone or it is a case of multiple grounds on which the impugned detention order was passed. (emphasis added) 09. The second contention of the appellant is that the grounds of detention forming basis of order of detention are vague and bereft of necessary details, and on the basis of such vague grounds, the appellant could not have been detained under the Act. A perusal of grounds of detention of the appellant would reveal that besides the incident of year 2020, there are other serious allegations against the appellant that he is an Over Ground Worker (OGW) Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 6 of banned outfit LeT/TRF and in contact with the radical elements of Rajpora-Drubgam, working for the terrorists of proscribed LeT namely, Ahsaan-ul-Haq and Haris Nazir Dar. Moreso, it is also stated in the grounds of detention that the appellant was in constant touch with Pak handler namely Ashaq Hussain Nengroo through Social Media networking system by using various Apps and further that the appellant had been indulging in motivating and instigating the youth of District, Pulwama and its adjoining areas for carrying out anti-national activities and also providing information to the terrorists about the movement of the Security Forces, providing food, shelter and facilitating the movement of the terrorists through unconventional passages to evade their arrest and make their long sustenance possible in the area. The detaining authority on the basis of dossier submitted by the sponsoring agency has derived its satisfaction for detaining the appellant under the Act. While exercising the power of judicial review, the courts cannot substitute its opinion with the satisfaction derived by the detaining authority. In Union of India v. Dimple Happy Dhakad, (2019) 20 SCC 609, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the court must be conscious that the satisfaction of the detaining authority is “subjective” in nature and the court cannot substitute its opinion for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and interfere with the order of detention. It does not mean that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is immune from judicial reviewability. By various decisions, the Supreme Court has carved out areas within which the validity of subjective satisfaction can be tested. Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 7 These are specific allegations against the appellant and the contention of the appellant that the grounds of detention are vague and bereft of any merit, as the activities in which the appellant has indulged himself are performed furtively and not in public gaze, therefore, we do not find any merit in this contention raised by the appellant. 10. The third contention raised by the appellant is that the learned writ court has not returned any finding as to whether the respondents considered the representation and whether the consideration order was actually received by the detenue and his father. A perusal of the writ petition preferred by the appellant reveals that the father of the appellant had filed a representation against the order of detention dated 04.08.2023, before the District Magistrate, Pulwama and the record further depicts that the same was decided vide order dated 11.08.2023 with a copy of the order to the father of the appellant. The opinion of the Advisory Board also bears testimony to the fact that the representation submitted by the father of the appellant was also considered by the Advisory Board, but was rejected being bereft of any merit. The learned writ court in para-11 has considered this contention on the basis of record. Thus, it is crystal clear that the appellant had availed the remedy of making representation, which was duly considered, rejected and communicated to the detenue in accordance with law, therefore, this contention of the appellant too is rejected. 11. Lastly, it was contended by the appellant that the procedural safeguards as envisaged, under the constitution and the Act have not been followed. The detention record depicts that the order of detention was Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 8 executed by S.I Abdul Rashid on 05.08.2023. The detention record demonstrates that the appellant was provided with the copy of detention, letter addressed to the appellant, grounds of detention and other documents, relied upon by the detaining authority for issuing the order of detention and in acknowledgement thereof, the appellant has appended his signature on the receipt of detention as well as the execution report dated 05.08.2023. Further, we find that the contents of grounds of detention were read over and explained to the appellant in English, Urdu and Kashmiri language, which he fully understood and he was also informed of his right to make a representation against the order of detention, as is evident from the execution report and the receipt of grounds of detention. The case of the appellant and his representation as examined by the Advisory Board and vide its opinion dated 23.08.2023, the Advisory Board opined in favour of detaining the appellant. Thereafter, the Government vide order dated 25.08.2023 also confirmed the order of detention. 12. We have examined the judgment dated 03.01.2025, passed by the learned writ Court and we find that except attributing the incident of the year 2020, to the year 2022 for returning the finding that the appellant has not been detained on the basis of stale incident of the year 2022, the learned writ Court has rightly considered the pleas raised by the appellant for quashing the order of detention, but as already stated above merely wrongly attributing the incident of year 2020 to the year 2022, would not make any difference, because the said incident was not the solitary incident forming the basis of issuance of order of detention and there were other valid grounds also for detaining the appellant. Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 9 13. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any illegality/irregularity in the judgment dated 03.01.2025, passed by the learned writ Court in HCP No. 39/2023, which would warrant interference at our end and, accordingly, dismiss this appeal. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 11.07.2025 “Mohammad Yasin Dar” Whether the Judgment is reportable: Yes/No. Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document