Srinagar, February 3, 2026 — The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that preventive detention under the Public Safety Act (PSA) cannot rest on old or ceased conduct and must be backed by a “live and proximate link” between the alleged activities and the purpose of detention.
Quashing a detention order passed by the Anantnag District Magistrate, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal said reliance on stale allegations without any current threat renders such action illegal.
“Preventive detention cannot be sustained on past, stale or indefinite allegations,” the Bench held, stressing that there must be a real and immediate connection between the person’s conduct and the need for detention.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by Huzaif Ahmad Dar, whose detention under Section 8 of the PSA had earlier been upheld by a Writ Court.
Dar argued that the April 20, 2024 detention order was passed mechanically and was based entirely on an FIR registered in 2022, in which he had already been released due to lack of incriminating evidence.
After examining the detention record, the High Court found that the entire case against Dar revolved around FIR No. 219/2022, with no specific illegal activity cited after his release.
“The allegations that the appellant remained in contact with ‘overground workers’ are bald and vague,” the Bench said, noting that no names, dates, particulars or supporting material were provided.
Such unsupported claims, the court observed, showed clear non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
In a key observation, the judges pointed out that the government’s own records admitted Dar had remained “silent” after September 13, 2023.
“Once there is a total cessation of activity, the very jurisdictional basis for invoking preventive detention disappears,” the Bench said, adding that continued custody in the absence of any current threat becomes arbitrary.
Reiterating constitutional safeguards, the court said authorities are bound to provide “clear, precise and proximate grounds” to allow a detenu to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Finding that these aspects were ignored by the Writ Court, the Bench set aside its earlier judgment, quashed the detention order, and directed Dar’s immediate release unless required in any other case.