Srinagar, Oct 31: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the detention of a man from Srinagar district under the J&K Public Safety Act (PSA), observing that the delay in deciding the detenu’s representation, unexplained delay in passing the order and reliance on vague and contradictory police reports rendered the detention illegal.
A bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal quashed the detention of Umer Hamid Sheikh while allowing his plea against the order dated June 2, 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, under the relevant provisions of the PSA.
While allowing Sheikh’s plea, filed through his mother, the Court directed the authorities to release him from preventive custody forthwith, provided he was not required in connection with any other case.
The Court noted that the sponsoring agency had approached the detaining authority on May 7, 2025, seeking Sheikh’s detention, but the order was passed only on June 2, leaving a gap of more than 25 days.
"The absence of plausible explanation by the respondents for the delay of 25 days between the proposal for detaining the petitioner and the order of detention is indicative of the fact that there was no urgency to detain the petitioner," the Court noted.
Moreover, the Court pointed out that the petitioner had earlier been detained under the PSA in February 2021, but the detention order was quashed by the High Court on August 4, 2023.
The Court observed that while passing the fresh detention order, the authorities relied upon Patrol Book reports dated September 27, 2024, and March 1, 2025, and a Beat Book report dated April 30, 2025, claiming that the petitioner had again indulged in activities prejudicial to the security of the State.
Upon examining the reports, the Court found them vague and contradictory. “Such material could not have been relied upon by the detaining authority to justify preventive detention,” it said.
The Court held that there was, in fact, no material before the detaining authority to record its satisfaction that Sheikh had indulged in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the State.
Another significant ground that weighed with the Court was the delay in deciding the representation submitted by the man’s mother, seeking revocation of his detention.
The Court observed that a duty is cast upon the detaining authority to decide the representation of a detenu within a reasonable time and in an expeditious manner.
In the present case, the Court said, there was no explanation from the respondents (authorities) for the delay of about two months in deciding the petitioner's representation.
“This unexplained slackness on the part of respondents to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner renders the impugned order of detention illegal.”