The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has reaffirmed that preventive detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act cannot rest on stale or disconnected allegations. A detention order loses legal validity when the primary ground collapses and no proximate link exists between past conduct and the present threat to public order.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Suraj Masih, was detained under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA) on 20.05.2025, based on a dossier citing multiple FIRs and Daily Diary Reports (DDRs). The detention order relied heavily on FIR No. 202/2024, registered under Sections 140(4), 118, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS), which was later closed by the Judicial Magistrate as "not admitted". The appellant challenged the detention order through a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Writ Court on 01.08.2025.
Procedural History
- 2018: FIR No. 31/2018 under Excise Act; appellant fined Rs. 2,500 after confession
- 2021: FIR No. 136/2021 registered under IPC Sections 341, 323, 325, 336, 382; offences compounded on 14.12.2023 by JMIC Hiranagar
- 2024: FIR No. 06/2024 registered on 11.01.2024 for assault; appellant granted interim bail on 16.05.2024
- 2024: FIR No. 202/2024 registered under BNS; investigation closed as "not admitted" on 20.11.2024
- 2025: Detention order issued on 20.05.2025, over a year after the last alleged incident
- 2025: Writ petition dismissed on 01.08.2025
- 2026: Appeal filed before the High Court
Relief Sought
The appellant sought quashing of the detention order on grounds of procedural illegality, absence of proximate live link, and reliance on a collapsed primary ground. He also contended that the delay of nearly one year vitiated the detention.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a preventive detention order under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act can be sustained when its primary factual basis has been legally extinguished and the remaining allegations are stale, with no proximate connection to the date of detention.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the detention order was fundamentally flawed because:
- FIR No. 202/2024, the primary catalyst for detention, was closed as "not admitted" by the Magistrate, removing its legal foundation
- FIR No. 136/2021 had been compounded, rendering it legally non-existent for punitive purposes
- The remaining FIRs were over a year old, with no intervening incident to justify detention
- The delay of 15 months between the last alleged act and detention violated the principle of proximate live link established in Saeed Zakir Hussain Malik v. State of Maharashtra
For the Respondent
The Senior Additional Advocate General contended that the Writ Court correctly upheld the detention order, arguing that:
- The Detaining Authority had access to a history of criminal conduct
- The DDRs reflected a pattern of antisocial behavior
- The closure of one FIR did not negate the cumulative threat posed by the appellant
- The PSA allows for preventive action based on past conduct if it indicates future risk
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the doctrine of proximate live link in preventive detention, emphasizing that the PSA is not a tool for punishing past conduct but for preventing imminent threats to public order. The Court held that the closure of FIR No. 202/2024 as "not admitted" was not a mere procedural formality but a judicial determination that removed the central justification for detention.
"The substratum of the detention order has disappeared. The appellant cannot be detained on the strength of earlier FIRs, which lack the requisite proximate live link necessary for the passing of a detention order."
The Court further noted that the lapse of nearly one year between the last alleged incident and the detention order broke the causal connection required under Section 8 of the PSA. Reliance on Saeed Zakir Hussain Malik v. State of Maharashtra was pivotal: the Court reiterated that undue delay, without a satisfactory explanation, vitiates the detention. The DDRs, while documenting past conduct, could not substitute for a current, live threat.
The Court also observed that the failure to detain the appellant immediately after his release on bail in May 2024 indicated that the authorities did not perceive an immediate threat at that time. Resurrecting those allegations a year later, after the primary ground vanished, was legally unsustainable.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded. The High Court quashed the detention order dated 20.05.2025 under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, holding that the absence of a proximate live link and the collapse of the primary ground vitiated the detention. The appellant was directed to be released forthwith, unless held in another case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Detention Cannot Rest on Collapsed Grounds
- Practitioners must challenge PSA detentions where the primary FIR or charge has been quashed, compounded, or closed
- A single extinguished ground, if central to the detention order, renders the entire order invalid
- Authorities cannot rely on "cumulative history" to compensate for the loss of a key factual basis
Delay of More Than One Year Vitiates Detention
- A delay exceeding 12 months between the last alleged act and detention order raises a strong presumption of illegality
- The burden shifts to the state to explain why the delay was necessary and reasonable
- DDRs alone cannot justify prolonged detention without recent, credible threat
Proximate Live Link Is Non-Negotiable
- The Court reaffirmed that preventive detention requires immediacy, not retrospective punishment
- Past conduct must be shown to have a direct, present connection to public order risk
- Legal practitioners should routinely request production of the Detaining Authority’s internal notes to test whether delay was considered and justified
