Jammu Kashmir High Court Quashes PSA Detention of Activist Rehmatullah Padder; Orders Immediate Release

VoM News Desk | May 22, 2026 | 01:53 PM IST | Breaking News, Doda, Jammu Kashmir |
Follow on Google News

Jammu Kashmir High Court Quashes PSA Detention of Activist Rehmatullah Padder; Orders Immediate Release

Doda, May 22, 2026 [VoM News]: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu on Wednesday quashed the Public Safety Act detention order against a 28-year-old man namely Rehmatullah Padder from Doda district, directing his immediate release from Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu, after finding that the state had violated his fundamental constitutional rights by failing to communicate the outcome of his representation against the detention in a timely manner.

The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal, allowed the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 159/2025) filed by Rehmatullah, son of Abdul Ghani Padder, resident of Dessa Bhata, Doda, and presently lodged at Ward No. 7, House No. 32, Akramabad, Tehsil and District Doda. The bench set aside the earlier judgment of the Writ Court dated July 22, 2025, which had dismissed Rehmatullah’s habeas corpus petition (HCP No. 154/2024), and quashed the detention order bearing No. PSA-02 of 2024 dated November 9, 2024, issued by the District Magistrate, Doda.

Rehmatullah was detained under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, which is a preventive detention law that allows authorities to detain a person without trial for up to two years if they are deemed a threat to state security or public order. The detention order, No. PSA-02 of 2024, was issued on November 9, 2024 by the District Magistrate, Doda, who served as the detaining authority in this case.

Challenging the detention order, Rehmatullah approached the High Court through a writ petition (HCP No. 154/2024). The learned Writ Court dismissed that petition on July 22, 2025, finding no merit in the challenge. Aggrieved by that dismissal, Rehmatullah filed the present Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench.

The appellant raised four principal grounds before the Division Bench:

Firstly, the grounds of detention relied upon five FIRs registered against him include FIR Nos. 173/2016, 177/2016, 82/2021, 178/2023, and 192/2024. However, Rehmatullah had already been discharged in FIR No. 173/2016, and had been discharged of all major offences in FIR No. 177/2016. The remaining three FIRs, the appellant argued, pertained to ordinary law and order issues and had no nexus whatsoever to the objects of the Public Safety Act, which is meant to deal with threats to state security and public order of a serious nature.

Secondly, the representation submitted by the appellant against the detention order was either not considered in accordance with law, or in any case, the outcome of that consideration was never communicated to him, thereby infringing the constitutional safeguards guaranteed to every detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Thirdly, the detention order was passed in a mechanical manner, based on vague and omnibus allegations, without any independent application of mind by the detaining authority.

The alleged activities attributed to the appellant did not constitute a threat to the security of the state or a disturbance of public order, and therefore could not justify the invocation of preventive detention.

Mr. M. A. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, argued before the bench that although Rehmatullah had submitted a representation against the detention order before the competent authority, that representation was neither considered in accordance with law, nor was any decision on it ever communicated to him.

He further contended that Rehmatullah stands fully discharged in FIR No. 173/2016 and has been discharged of major offences in FIR No. 177/2016. The remaining FIRs, counsel argued, pertain strictly to routine law and order matters and cannot justify preventive detention under the PSA. He concluded that no fresh prejudicial activity had been attributed to the appellant to warrant the invocation of such stringent preventive detention measures.

Ms. Monika Kohli, Senior Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents — which included the Union Territory of J&K through the Commissioner/Secretary, Home Department; the Chairman, Advisory Board constituted under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978; the District Magistrate, Doda; the Senior Superintendent of Police, Doda; and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal — argued that the Writ Court had rightly appreciated the matter and that all procedural safeguards envisaged under the Constitution and the Public Safety Act were duly complied with while passing and executing the detention order.

After hearing both sides and perusing the entire record, including the detention record, the Division Bench identified the core issue as the consideration and communication of the decision on the representation submitted by the appellant’s brother on his behalf.

The court noted from the detention record that the appellant’s brother had submitted a representation dated November 22, 2024 to three authorities — the Chairman of the Advisory Board, the Commissioner/Secretary to the Government (Home Department), and the District Magistrate, Doda (Respondent No. 3).

Respondent No. 3 — the District Magistrate, Doda — rejected the representation on December 5, 2024, but the outcome of that rejection was never communicated to the appellant.

Respondent No. 1 — the Union Territory of J&K through the Home Department — rejected the representation on January 21, 2025, and did communicate the decision to the detenu, but the exact date of that communication was not specified in the record.

The bench observed that even if communication is assumed to have taken place on January 21, 2025 — the date of rejection — Respondent No. 1 had taken more than one and a half months to decide the representation. The court held that this amounted to an impermissible delay.

The bench reaffirmed the settled legal position that the right to make a representation against a detention order includes the valuable right to its expeditious consideration and the prompt communication of the decision to the detenu. Failure to communicate the decision, or an inordinate delay in its consideration, inherently vitiates the detention order and renders the continued detention illegal.

In this context, the bench placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in *Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs. District Magistrate, Jabalpur and Others, (2021) 20 SCC 98*, and specifically extracted the governing principle laid down in paragraph 47 of that judgment, which reads:

*“By delaying its decision on the representation, the State Government deprived the detenu of the valuable right which emanates from the provisions of Section 8(1) of having the representation being considered expeditiously. As we have noted earlier, the communication of the grounds of detention to the detenu ‘as soon as may be’ and the affording to the detenu of the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention to the appropriate government are intended to ensure that the representation of the detenu is considered by the appropriate government with a sense of immediacy. The State Government failed to do so. The making of a reference to the Advisory Board could not have furnished any justification for the State Government not to deal with the representation independently at the earliest. The delay by the State Government in disposing of the representation and by the Central and State Governments in communicating such rejection, strikes at the heart of the procedural rights and guarantees granted to the detenu. It is necessary to understand that the law provides for such procedural safeguards to balance the wide powers granted to the executive under the NSA. The State Government cannot expect this Court to uphold its powers of subjective satisfaction to detain a person, while violating the procedural guarantees of the detenu that are fundamental to the laws of preventive detention enshrined in the Constitution.”*

The Division Bench also examined the judgment rendered by the learned Writ Court and found that this crucial aspect — the delay in consideration and non-communication of the decision on the representation — had not been properly adverted to or addressed. The bench held that the impugned judgment of the Writ Court therefore could not be sustained.

Accordingly, the Division Bench allowed the appeal. The judgment of the Writ Court dated July 22, 2025 was set aside. The detention order bearing No. PSA-02 of 2024 dated November 9, 2024, issued by the District Magistrate, Doda, was quashed.

The court directed that Rehmatullah be released from custody forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case. The detention record was ordered to be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.

The judgment was pronounced on May 21, 2026, reserved on April 21, 2026, and uploaded on May 21, 2026. The bench confirmed that the judgment is a speaking judgment. It was further noted that the judgment is not reportable.

The bench also clarified that the full judgment, and not merely the operative part, stands pronounced.

VoM News Desk

VoM News is an online web portal in jammu Kashmir offers regional, National & global news.