The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that allegations of illegal acts committed by a person when he was a juvenile cannot serve as grounds for preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (PSA). This decision emerged in an appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition filed by a 20-year-old detainee challenging his preventive detention under Section 8 of the Act. The District Magistrate of Pulwama had ordered his detention on the basis of a dossier which primarily referenced an FIR filed when he was a juvenile and subsequent alleged activities. The detainee argued that since he was a minor at the time of the FIR, and the grounds were vague and not proximate, detention was unlawful.
A Division Bench of the High Court, comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal, carefully examined the detention record, the dossier presented to the detaining authority, and the chronology of events. The Court observed that the FIR relied upon for the detention order had been registered when the appellant was a juvenile and had been brought before the Juvenile Justice Board. Under the PSA and the juvenile-justice framework, the Court held that a juvenile cannot be subjected to preventive detention under the Act. Consequently, any illegal act allegedly committed by the appellant during his minority could not legally justify the present detention order. The Court noted that using juvenile-period acts would amount to stigmatizing the individual’s future — a course the law does not permit.
The Bench further considered whether there were other independent, valid and sufficiently particularised grounds—relating to the appellant’s conduct as an adult—that could sustain the detention under Section 10-A of the Act. It found that the remaining grounds in the dossier were vague and lacked specificity: there were no clear particulars relating to time, place, incidents, or persons involved. Broad and nebulous allegations such as “instigating youth to join terrorists” or “providing logistic support” without any concrete instances or evidence fail to meet the statutory requirement of precise grounds. The Court relied on established jurisprudence requiring that grounds for detention must be precise, proximate and supported by rationally relevant material. Vague or unspecified allegations are legally insufficient.
Given that part of the grounds was invalid by reason of being based on juvenile acts, and what remained was imprecise and vague, the Court held that the detention order was legally unsustainable. The subjective satisfaction claimed by the detaining authority—which under preventive detention law is a key requirement—was therefore vitiated. The Court concluded that the impugned detention order must be quashed.
As a result, the High Court set aside the detention order and directed immediate release of the appellant from preventive custody, unless he is required in connection with any other case. The order of the writ court dismissing the habeas corpus petition is overruled.
This ruling clarifies a vital principle in preventive detention jurisprudence in Jammu & Kashmir: no individual can be detained under PSA on the basis of crimes committed during his minority. Acts committed as a juvenile cannot be invoked to deny a person’s liberty under PSA once he becomes an adult.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.