NEW DELHI: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh high court has ruled that such an omission violates procedural safeguards and ordered the immediate release of a man detained under the Public Safety Act.In its October 23, 2026, judgment, the high court quashed the man’s detention order and all subsequent approval and confirmation orders, directing the superintendent of District Jail, Poonch, to release him forthwith.Why was the man detained under the Public Safety Act?According to the court order, the district police submitted a dossier to the district magistrate, Rajouri, on June 11, 2026, alleging that the man’s activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.The dossier referred to three criminal cases registered against him in 2020, 2022 and 2025.
These included cases under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.After considering the dossier, the district magistrate issued a preventive detention order on July 11, 2026, under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The man was taken into custody on July 13 and lodged in District Jail, Poonch.His brother approached the high court through a habeas corpus petition, seeking his release.
The petition challenged the detention on the ground that the authorities had failed to inform him of his right to make a representation against the order before the district magistrate who had issued it.The man’s counsel argued that the notice served on him informed him only of his right to make a representation to the government. It did not tell him that he could also approach the district magistrate, who had issued the detention order.High court’s observationJustice Rahul Bharti examined the notice dated July 11, 2026, and the receipt signed when the detention documents were served on the man.
It found that he had been given
It found that he had been given a compilation of 82 pages, including the detention order, grounds of detention and other records, but was informed only about his right to approach the government.”The respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Rajouri is meaning to apprise the petitioner of his right to make a representation only to the Government and none else. Therefore, there is an express omission being found in the very notice itself,” the court observed.The court noted that the detention was later confirmed by the government on August 6, 2026, following an opinion by the Advisory Board.
The board had recorded that no representation had been received from the man. However, the high court pointed out that he had never been informed of his separate right to make a representation to the district magistrate.Why did the high court quash the detention?The bench said the man could not be expected to prove how the failure to inform him of his right to make a representation had affected him, particularly when his personal liberty was at stake.”This Court is not entitled to question the petitioner as to what prejudice has he suffered by deprivation of his right to be informed of making a representation against his detention to the detention order making authority.
When it is a matter of loss of fundamental right to personal liberty, doctrine of prejudice is not meant to be confronted to a person suffering the loss of fundamental right to personal liberty by being in confinement and custody without having suffered any conviction for commission of offence/s by a criminal court of law,” the court said.The court also stressed that preventive detention under the Public Safety Act required strict compliance with procedural safeguards.”The petitioner’s detention is under preventive measures envisaged under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 and, therefore, preventive detention jurisdiction is purely procedure driven admitting of no scope for any lapse of meticulous compliance on the part not only of the sponsoring authority seeking preventive detention of a prospective detenue but also on the part of the detention order making authority as well as detention order approving and confirmation authority which is the State,” it added.The high court further criticised the Advisory Board for failing to detect the omission and said it was expected to act as a watchdog to ensure that all procedural requirements had been followed.The high court quashed the detention order dated July 11, 2026, along with the subsequent approval, confirmation and extension orders.
It directed the superintendent of District Jail, Poonch, to release the man forthwith.
