Srinagar, Sep 2: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed the Public Safety Act (PSA) detention of a 41-year-old man accused of posting derogatory content against Lord Ram and mocking Hindu women observing Karwa Chauth, holding that the authorities’ 38-day delay in ordering his detention was legally unsustainable.

Justice Rajesh Sekhri observed that the SSP, Kathua, recommended the man’s detention on October 30, 2025, but the District Magistrate issued the detention order only on December 8. The court said such a prolonged delay was inconsistent with the authorities’ claim that the man posed an immediate threat to public order.
The court also described the circumstances surrounding the detention as a “colourable exercise of power”, particularly as the accused had secured pre-arrest bail in the last FIR cited against him shortly before the PSA order.
According to the police dossier, the man had four FIRs and two daily diary reports against him and was described as a history-sheeter allegedly involved in inflammatory speeches and provocative social-media activity. Authorities accused him of promoting hatred and enmity along religious and caste lines despite previous warnings and legal action.
The petitioner’s counsel, Senior Advocate K S Johal and Advocate Supreet Singh Johal, argued that the 38-day gap destroyed the required “live and proximate” link between the alleged conduct and the need for preventive detention.
They also contended that the authorities failed to place the December 4 pre-arrest bail order before the detaining authority. The government defended the detention, maintaining that it was based on sufficient material and that due consideration had been given to the threat allegedly posed to public order and communal harmony.
The High Court, however, found the delay unexplained and inconsistent with the claimed urgency. It further held that withholding the bail order was a material omission, preventing the detaining authority from forming a legally sound “subjective satisfaction”.
The court said the omission also undermined the detainee’s constitutional safeguards and his effective right to challenge the detention.
Allowing the petition, the High Court set aside the PSA detention order, reiterating that preventive detention must strictly conform to constitutional safeguards and cannot be used to bypass or undermine judicial orders.