HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 04.05.2026 Pronounced on 22.05.2026 Uploaded on 22.05.2026 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full judgment. HCP No. 88/2025 CM No. 5322/2025 Indres Ahmad Dar (Aged 26 years), S/o Bashir Ahmad Dar, Through his mother-Mst Zeba, Aged 67 years, R/o Tujan, Banpora, Pulwama. …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Syed Riyaz Khawar, Advocate v/s 1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through its Principal Secretary Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar. 2. District Magistrate, Pulwama. 3. Superintendent of Police, District Jail, Udhampur. …. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Furqan Yaqub, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, is challenging detention order bearing No. 09/DMP/PSA/25 dated 30.04.2025 issued by respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Pulwama (hereinafter referred to as 2 HCP No. 88/2025 “the detaining authority”), whereby the petitioner has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State. 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of detention, inter alia, on the grounds that the entire material forming basis of the grounds of detention was not furnished to him, thereby depriving him of opportunity to make an effective and suitable representation against the impugned order of detention. It has been further contended that the allegations contained in the grounds of detention are vague and lacking in material particulars, as a result whereof the petitioner was unable to make an effective representation against impugned order of detention. It has also been contended that the petitioner was not informed about his right to make a representation against the impugned order of detention. Further, it has been submitted that there existed no compelling reasons for the detaining authority warranting issuance of the impugned order of detention and that the detaining authority has passed the same without application of mind. 3. The petition has been contested by the respondents. Respondent No. 2, the detaining authority, has filed its reply affidavit. In the said affidavit, it has been submitted that entire material forming basis of the grounds of detention was furnished to the petitioner and that he was also informed of his right to make a representation against the order of detention. It has further been submitted that the grounds of detention are precise, proximate and well reasoned, and that there is no vagueness or staleness 3 HCP No. 88/2025 in the grounds of detention. It has also been submitted that the competent authority applied its independent mind to the facts and the material available before it prior to passing the impugned order of detention. It has been further submitted that, on the basis of the material available on record, the detaining authority was satisfied that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the security of the State. Learned counsel for the respondents has also produced the detention record in support of the assertions made in the reply affidavit. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, including the detention record. 5. The first ground that has been urged by the petitioner for challenging the impugned order of detention is that entire material forming basis of grounds of detention has not been supplied to him. In this regard, a perusal of the detention record would reveal that the petitioner has been provided total ten leaves, comprising copy of warrant (1 leaf), notice of detention (1 leaf), grounds of detention (two leaves), dossier (two leaves) copies of Istegasa (3 leaves), beat report (01 leaf). A perusal of the grounds of detention formulated by the detaining authority in the instant case would reveal that these were the only documents relied upon by the detaining authority while arriving at its subjective satisfaction. The petitioner has appended his signatures on the receipt acknowledging the receipt of the said material. Therefore, the assertion of the petitioner that the entire material relied upon by the detaining authority was not furnished to him is contrary to the record. 4 HCP No. 88/2025 6. The next ground that has been urged by the petitioner is that the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague in nature, which, according to the petitioner, prevented him from making an effective representation against the order of detention. In this regard, if we have a look at the grounds of detention, it is clearly alleged therein that the petitioner has worked as Over Ground Worker of active terrorist, namely Harris Nazir Dar, a resident of Kassipora Rajpora, Pulwama. It has been further alleged that the petitioner has been providing food, shelter and information to the said terrorist and because of the assistance rendered by the petitioner the said terrorist managed to escape from the clutches of the security forces/police. 7. The beat report, a copy whereof has been provided to the petitioner, alongwith other material, would show that there are allegations that the petitioner has been providing logistic support to the active terrorists, namely, Harish Nazir Dar, a resident of Kassipora and Eshan Sheikh a resident of Muran. It is also alleged in the beat report that the petitioner was giving information about the movement of Police and Security Forces to these terrorists. The beat report goes on to allege that the petitioner often visits Yousmarg and Pakherpora to keep watch on the movement of tourists and pass information to terrorists. 8. Thus, the contents of the beat report and the contents of grounds of detention, clearly indicate the particulars of the activities in which the petitioner was indulging. These documents also disclose the identity of the terrorists with whom the petitioner is stated to be in contact and to whom 5 HCP No. 88/2025 he is allegedly providing logistic support. Therefore, by no stretch of reasoning can it be said that the allegations made against the petitioner in the grounds of detention, or the material furnished to him, are vague or lacking in material particulars. The contention raised by the petitioner in this regard is without any basis. 9. So far as the contention of the petitioner that there were no compelling reasons for the detaining authority to pass the impugned order of detention, and that the same has been passed in a mechanical manner is concerned, it is to be noted that scope of judicial review in respect of the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is very limited. While examining the material forming the basis of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, the Court ought not to act as a court of appeal or substitute its own opinion for that of the detaining authority. The question as to whether the allegations made in the grounds of detention and the material placed on record before the detaining authority were sufficient to furnish compelling reasons for passing the order of detention cannot be gone into by this Court while exercising its power of judicial review. 10. It is settled law that those who are responsible for national security or for the maintenance of public order must be the sole judges of what national security, public order, or the security of the State requires. This Court cannot interfere with the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority regarding the necessity of placing the petitioner under 6 HCP No. 88/2025 preventive detention with a view to preventing him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State. 11. For what has been discussed hereinbefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of detention passed by the detaining authority. The petition lacks merit, the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 12. The detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 22. 05.2026 Karam Chand Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: No KARAM CHAND 2026.05.22 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document