The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has criticised the District Magistrate (DM) Srinagar’s casual approach in ordering preventive detention of a 36-year-old man last year [Muzaffar Farooq Mir v. UT of J&K and Ors]..Justice Rahul Bharti took exception to the manner in which the incumbent DM Akshay Labroo responded to a plea challenging the detention order passed by his predecessor, stating that the counter-affidavit followed the “script of the grounds of detention” without any shade of difference.“The respondents cannot expect a constitutional court to extend any courtesy and concession in favour of UT of Jammu and Kashmir and District Magistrate concerned in overlooking the casualness in the matter of filing counter affidavit,” the judge further said..The Court was dealing with a writ of habeas corpus filed by the detenue Muzaffar Farooq Mir, a Kashmir resident who has been in detention in Jammu since May 2025. The detention order was passed by the Srinagar DM on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police (SSP), who alleged that Mir was a man of an extremist ideology and encouraged people to engage in anti-national activities.The Court found that the detention order passed under the J&K Public Safety Act (PSA) was flawed and called out the DM’s “pedantic level indulgence” in the case.“The preventive detention order of the petitioner is fundamentally flawed and that is by the state of application of mind on the part of the respondent No.2- District Magistrate, Srinagar in scripting and signing the very detention order reflecting the pedantic level indulgence on the part of the respondent No.2- District Magistrate, Srinagar,” the judge said. .The Court particularly highlighted a mistake committed by the DM in mentioning the date of a previous detention order passed against Mir. While that detention order was passed in 2022, the DM wrote ‘2024’ instead.“The respondent No.2- District Magistrate Srinagar refers to the previous detention of the petitioner by drawing the reference to the order as follow: “Order No. DMS/PSA/151/2022 dated 15.11.2024”. If the respondent No.2- District Magistrate Srinagar is not in a position to re-read the draft of his grounds of detention to come across with a patent error of mention of date of previous detention order of the petitioner then the application of mind of the respondent No.2- District Magistrate, Srinagar is not worth trusting that in passing second time detention order of the petitioner due application of mind was taking place from his end,” the judge said.The Court remarked that what may have seemed like a minor or casual matter to the DM had serious consequences for the detenue’s fundamental right to personal liberty. “What is a casual for the District Magistrate Srinagar is a causality to the fundamental right of the personal liberty of the petitioner which is further reflected on the grounds that by reckoning the alleged activities of the petitioner being adverse of the Government to the maintenance of public order, the quantum leap to order the detention of the petitioner by reference to the same activity being prejudicial to the security of the State is reflective of sense of loss of legal distinction at the end of the respondent No.2- District Magistrate Srinagar.”.Nothing can be more "absurd" than the "inherent contradiction" reflected in the grounds of detention formulated by DM Srinagar on the basis of which the preventive detention order came to be passed against Mir, the Court further said.Therefore, the Court quashed the preventive detention of the detainee and ordered his release. "In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the preventive detention of the petitioner is held to be illegal which warrants quashment of detention Order," the Court ruled..Advocate Sania Ghulam represented the petitioner.Government Advocate Jahingir Dar appeared for the UT J&K..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
