The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh recently observed that preventive detention under the Public Safety Act (PSA) cannot be invoked once the detaining authorities admit to cessation of illegal activity [Huzaif Ahmed Dar v. UT of J&K].
A Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed,
"Notably, the respondent's own records, the dossier and grounds of detention concede that the appellant has been 'silent' after 13th September 2023. Once the detaining authority admits to a total cessation of activity, the jurisdictional basis for invoking preventive detention disappears. Without a current or proximate threat to security, the detention is arbitrary and legally unsustainable."
The Court observed that preventive detention is justified only when there exists a live and proximate threat to security.
It reiterated that the PSA cannot be invoked mechanically on stale or past allegations. Such an approach, the Bench held, violates the constitutional safeguards guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
The Court was hearing a plea filed on behalf of one Huzaif Ahmad Dar, who was detained under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, pursuant to 2024 order passed by the District Magistrate, Anantnag.
The detention was initially challenged through a habeas corpus petition, which was dismissed by the High Court on August 7, 2025. Aggrieved by the dismissal, Dar preferred a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench, assailing the legality of both the detention order and the single-judge verdict.
Counsel for the appellant argued that the detention was based on stale and vague allegations, primarily revolving around a first information report (FIR) registered in 2022, in which the appellant had already been released due to lack of evidence.
It was contended that no specific illegal activity was attributed to the appellant after his release and that even the State’s own dossier admitted that he had remained “silent” after September 2023, snapping the live link required for preventive detention.
The State, on the other hand, defended the detention by asserting that it was passed after due consideration and in compliance with procedural safeguards.
After examining the record, the Division Bench found that no material was placed on record to show any prejudicial activity post-release and that the allegations of continued involvement were bald and unsupported by particulars.
Holding that PSA cannot be invoked mechanically on past or stale allegations, the Court set aside the single-judge verdict, quashed the detention order and directed the immediate release of Dar, if he is not required in any other case.
Dar was represented by Advocate Asif Ali.
The Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and other respondents were represented by Advocate Illyas Nazir.
[Read judgment]