Disturbance of Law and Order Is Not the Same as Public Order — Petty Offences Cannot Justify Preventive Detention: J&K High Court Quashes PSA Detention of Man Accused in Four FIRs

Preventive Detention Cannot Be Used to Bypass Bail or Trial - In a significant judgment reinforcing constitutional safeguards under Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed the preventive detention of Irfan Nazir (alias Veerapan) under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, observing that the detention was a clear case of non-application of mind and that the allegations did not amount to a threat to public order.

Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani, delivering a detailed and precedent-rich judgment in HCP No. 175/2024, held: “The invocation of the provisions of the Act to detain the petitioner rather than to deal with him under the general criminal law appears to be an unjustified exercise tantamounting to violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner.”

“Calling Him ‘Veerapan’ Doesn’t Make Him a Threat — Criminal Cases Must Be Tried, Not Short-Circuited Through Detention”
The petitioner was detained under an order passed by the District Magistrate, Srinagar on April 4, 2024, citing involvement in four FIRs, three from 2016 and one from 2024 (under Sections 341, 323 IPC — considered minor bailable offences). The detaining authority relied solely on a police dossier, and the alleged justification was that he posed a threat to public order.

The Court observed with concern that: “The detaining authority has not mentioned in the grounds of detention as to how the normal criminal law is inadequate to deal with the petitioner, when he was already facing trial in the FIRs framed against him.”

Quoting the Supreme Court's judgment in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, the Court reiterated the fundamental distinction: “Every breach of the peace does not lead to public disorder... before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large.”

“Public Order Requires Community Impact — Petty FIRs in One Police Station Don’t Qualify”
The Court held that the FIRs, all registered at Saddar Police Station, did not indicate any public disorder or threat to communal harmony. They were private disputes and criminal allegations for which the petitioner had already been granted bail and was facing trial.

Referring to Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, the Court stated: “The test to be applied is whether the alleged act leads to the disturbance of the current of life of the community... If it affects only individuals, the act cannot be termed as public disorder.”

“Dossier Is Not Gospel — Copy-Paste Grounds of Detention Show Non-Application of Mind”
The Court was scathing in its criticism of how the detention order replicated the police dossier word for word, and observed: “The grounds of detention supplied to the detenu is a copy of dossier, which was placed before the District Magistrate... This shows total non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.”

This, the Court said, was contrary to constitutional requirements under Article 22(5) and Section 8 of the PSA, which demand subjective satisfaction based on independent consideration, not mechanical approval.

“You Can't Use Preventive Detention to Circumvent Bail”
Quoting extensively from landmark rulings like Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu and Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, the Court emphasized: “Preventive detention laws—an exceptional measure reserved for tackling emergent situations—ought not to have been invoked in this case as a tool for enforcement of law and order.”

It also cited the recent Supreme Court decision in Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana (2023), noting: “If the ordinary law of the land can deal with a situation, recourse to preventive detention will be illegal.”

“Fundamental Rights Can’t Be Curtailed Casually — Detention Quashed”
Holding that the detention order failed to meet the threshold of legality and fairness, the Court ruled: “There seems to be merit in the instant petition, which is allowed and consequently the impugned detention order... is quashed.”

“The petitioner/detenu is directed to be released forthwith from his preventive detention.”

Date of Decision: 2 April 2025