Representative image
SRINAGAR: J&K and Ladakh HC has summoned the Srinagar deputy commissioner for a personal appearance over a “vague” preventive detention order under Public Safety Act that accused a 28-year-old man of supporting “aforementioned terrorists” without identifying a single one, prompting the court to question whether the officer had independently assessed the case or merely reproduced a police dossier.A single bench of Justice Wasim Nargal said preventive detention, which allows authorities to deprive a person of liberty without a regular criminal trial, demands the “highest degree of constitutional responsibility and procedural diligence”.“The safeguards embodied in Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India are not empty formalities,” the court said, adding that the detaining authority must independently assess the material and satisfy itself that legal conditions for detention are met.The court directed the DC to appear with the detention order, police dossier, material placed before him and records showing his consideration of the case and subjective satisfaction before ordering detention under PSA.HC was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Zubair Amin Bangroo of Srinagar, challenging his detention under an order dated Jan 13, 2026. His counsel Nida Nazir said the allegations were vague, no FIR had been registered against him and the detention order appeared to have been passed hurriedly.
The order accused Bangroo of developing close links with terrorists, supporting them logistically and morally, and allowing his home and other safe locations to be used as hideouts. However, Nazir said it neither identified the terrorists nor named the network or associates with whom Bangroo was allegedly in contact.
HC found that the detention grounds referred to “aforementioned terrorists” without any preceding reference identifying a terrorist.
The phrase raised a compelling question about whether the DC had independently formulated the grounds or simply reproduced the police dossier, the court said.“Personal liberty occupies a position of paramount importance in the constitutional scheme. Its deprivation, even for a single day, constitutes an injury which cannot subsequently be undone by the mere restoration of liberty,” the court said.