High Court Overturns Preventive Detention in Jammu and Kashmir Case

In a significant ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has annulled a preventive detention order under the Public Safety Act, highlighting a lack of genuine consideration by authorities. Justice Rahul Bharti emphasized the need for constitutional safeguards in such cases, stating that the grounds for detention were vague and lacked factual basis. The court ordered the release of Ehtsham ul Haq Dar unless required for other legal matters. This decision follows a similar ruling for another detainee, reinforcing the importance of adhering to constitutional rights in preventive detention cases.

By Narendra Chaudhary Mar 18, 2026, 12:09 IST

Court Ruling on Preventive Detention

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has annulled a preventive detention order issued under the Public Safety Act, stating that there was a lack of genuine consideration by the senior superintendent of police in Bandipora and the district magistrate regarding the detention of the individual, as reported by a news outlet on Tuesday.

Instead, the court noted a consensus that the individual should be detained under dubious pretenses.

The Public Safety Act serves as a preventive detention law, permitting authorities to detain individuals to avert actions that could threaten state security or disrupt public order within the Union Territory.

Justice Rahul Bharti mandated the release of Ehtsham ul Haq Dar unless he is needed for other legal matters. Dar had been detained since May 6, following an order from the Bandipora district magistrate, and was incarcerated in Kishtwar jail.

An advisory board under the Public Safety Act had previously determined on June 2 that there was adequate justification for his detention, which the government extended until November 5.

Justice Bharti pointed out that there was no documentation supporting any further extension of Dar's detention. He remarked that the reasons for preventive detention were based on vague assumptions lacking factual basis, aside from a criminal case linked to a first information report.

The judge criticized the authorities for neglecting their constitutional duty to exercise caution when resorting to preventive detention, as reported by a news outlet.

According to the dossier, Dar was allegedly implicated in anti-national activities as an associate of a banned terrorist group.

Justice Bharti also observed that the police dossier and the detention grounds were nearly identical.

He stated that the District Magistrate of Bandipora appeared to have merely echoed the senior superintendent of police's narrative when formulating the detention grounds.

“A fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not so fragile that it can be disregarded by a casual exercise of authority under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978,” the judge remarked.

Article 21 of the Constitution ensures the right to life and personal liberty.

Recently, Justice Bharti also ordered the release of another detainee, Mudasir Ahmad Bhat, from Udhampur district jail, citing that his preventive detention did not align with constitutional protections governing such actions.