In a significant ruling reinforcing personal liberty, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the detention of Mehraj Din Malik under the stringent Public Safety Act (PSA).
Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani, while hearing a habeas corpus petition, set aside detention order No. PSA-05 of 2025 dated September 8, 2025. The order had been issued by the District Magistrate of Doda. The court directed that Malik be released immediately, provided he is not required in any other case.
Clear Line Between “Law and Order” and “Public Order”
The court underscored a crucial legal principle: not every violation of law qualifies as a threat to public order. It held that allegations falling within the scope of routine law and order cannot be stretched to justify preventive detention.
“Preventive detention curtails the most precious right of liberty and must be invoked only in genuine and inevitable circumstances,” the court observed, reiterating established legal standards.
Background of the Case
Malik, 37, had been detained and lodged in District Jail Kathua on allegations that his activities were prejudicial to public order. Authorities relied on a police dossier citing 18 FIRs and 16 Daily Diary Reports (DDRs) registered between 2014 and 2025, along with inputs from the Executive Magistrate.
The detention was challenged by his father, Shamas Din, who argued that the order was arbitrary, politically motivated, and an abuse of preventive detention laws. The petition maintained that the allegations were already part of ongoing criminal proceedings, making preventive detention unnecessary.
Court Rejects Preventive Detention as Substitute for Trial
After reviewing the material, the High Court found that the cases cited against Malik were either under investigation or trial before competent courts. It ruled that there was no compelling evidence to suggest he posed an imminent threat to public order.
Importantly, the court emphasized that preventive detention cannot replace the normal process of criminal prosecution.
Arguments from Both Sides
The respondents defended the detention, stating that Malik’s conduct had the potential to disturb public order and that due process had been followed, including consideration of police and administrative reports.
However, the court was not convinced that the threshold required for invoking PSA had been met.
Legal Representation
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Rahul Pant, assisted by advocates Muzaffar Iqbal Khan, S.S. Ahmed, Appu Singh Salathia, Tariq Mougal, and Zulkarnain Chowdhary.
The Union Territory was represented by Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli and Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi.
Key Takeaway
The ruling reinforces judicial safeguards against misuse of preventive detention laws, stressing that such extraordinary powers must only be used in exceptional situations where public order is genuinely at risk—not as an alternative to standard legal proceedings.
