The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that mere possession of a book alleged to contain “anti-national” material cannot, by itself, justify preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA).
The ruling was delivered by Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, who quashed a preventive detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Kupwara, observing that the authorities had failed to demonstrate any specific act or activity by the detenue that could warrant invocation of the stringent preventive detention law.
The High Court examined the grounds relied upon by the detaining authority and noted that the detention case was, among other things, based on the alleged recovery of books described as having “dispiriting titles” and allegedly containing anti-national literature.
However, the Court found that the authorities had wrongly attributed the authorship of the books to the detenue. The Court also took into consideration the fact that the detenue was an academic scholar and observed that a person engaged in academic pursuits could reasonably be expected to possess a wide range of literary material.
The High Court made it clear that possession of books, without more, cannot automatically be treated as criminal or prejudicial conduct warranting preventive detention.
The Court observed that “mere possession of the books with dispiriting titles does not ipso facto make the detenue a criminal against whom preventive detention was required to be invoked.”
The Court also examined the authorities’ allegation that separatist ideology had allegedly been inculcated in the detenue since childhood on the ground that his father was an ex-militant.
The High Court rejected the contention, describing the assertion as “delusory” and observing that it reflected an “unmindful exercise of power.”
The Court stressed that preventive detention cannot be sustained on the basis of vague, speculative or unsubstantiated allegations. The detaining authority is required to apply its mind to the material available on record and establish a clear connection between the alleged conduct and the necessity for preventive detention.
Finding non-application of mind by the detaining authority, the High Court quashed the detention order dated September 13, 2025, passed against the detenue.
The Court consequently directed that the detenue be released forthwith from preventive custody, subject to there being no other legal impediment to his release.
The judgment reiterates the principle that the extraordinary power of preventive detention must be exercised strictly in accordance with law and cannot be invoked merely on the basis of possession of books or unsubstantiated assumptions about a person’s ideological background. (KNC)
