High Court Quashes PSA Detention of Doda Political Worker, Cites Procedural Lapses and Vague Grounds

Doda, October 18 – In a stern rebuke to the authorities’ handling of preventive detentions, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the Public Safety Act (PSA) order against Mohd Rafi alias Pinka, a politically active resident of Doda district, ordering his immediate release from custody. The judgment, pronounced on October 17 and uploaded the following day, underscores persistent concerns over the misuse of draconian laws in the region, highlighting failures in due process that imperil fundamental rights. The Chenab Times, which first reported on Pinka’s detention in April and has accessed the full court document, views this as a pivotal moment in scrutinizing administrative overreach in Jammu and Kashmir’s Chenab Valley.

The case, docketed as Habeas Corpus Petition (HCP) No. 66/2025, was filed by Pinka’s wife, Parveena Begum, challenging the detention order issued by the District Magistrate of Doda on April 10, 2025. Pinka, a laborer from Phagsoo village in Tehsil Phagsoo, had been lodged in District Jail Udhampur since his arrest, ostensibly to prevent activities deemed prejudicial to public order. The court’s decision, authored by Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, delves deeply into the procedural intricacies of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, and draws on a rich tapestry of precedents to dismantle the basis of the detention, emphasizing that liberty cannot be curtailed on flimsy or unsubstantiated grounds.

At the heart of the petition lies Pinka’s profile as a man entangled in a web of legal skirmishes that, according to the authorities, painted him as a habitual disruptor. The detention dossier referenced four First Information Reports (FIRs) spanning over a decade: one from 2013 involving charges of rioting and obstruction, which ended in acquittal in 2017; a 2014 case of rash driving resulting in a modest fine; a 2021 violation under pandemic-era laws that led to discharge in 2022; and an ongoing 2025 investigation into assault. Supplementing these were four Daily Diary reports and one Istagasa complaint, collectively portraying Pinka as someone who persistently flouted the law despite warnings. The respondents, including the Union Territory administration, the Doda District Magistrate, Senior Superintendent of Police, and jail superintendent, defended the action as preventive rather than punitive, arguing that Pinka’s “anti-social activities” posed an imminent threat to communal harmony in areas like Thathri sub-district.

However, the petitioner’s counsel, Rahul Raina, dismantled this narrative by pointing out that three of the four FIRs had already been resolved favorably for Pinka, rendering them irrelevant to any current threat assessment. More critically, the detention order was supplied solely in English, without translation into Urdu or Kashmiri—languages Pinka understands—thereby violating his constitutional right under Article 22(5) to make an effective representation. This linguistic barrier, the court noted implicitly through its broader scrutiny, compounded the detenu’s inability to contest the charges meaningfully. The judgment meticulously recounts how a representation against the detention, submitted to the District Magistrate, Home Secretary, and Advisory Board, was summarily rejected by the Magistrate on May 1, 2025, via a “non-speaking order” that lacked reasoned analysis. This rejection occurred after the government had approved the detention on April 16, stripping the Magistrate of authority to act independently, as per Sections 8 and 19 of the PSA.

Justice Koul’s analysis begins with a thorough examination of the detention records, revealing a timeline that exposes procedural infirmities. The order, approved swiftly by the Home Department on April 16 and confirmed on May 3 for an initial three-month period (extendable thereafter), was followed by the Magistrate’s rejection of the representation, which was then forwarded to the Advisory Board without further action or communication to Pinka. The court invokes Section 8(4) of the PSA, which mandates government approval within 12 days, after which the detaining authority—here, the District Magistrate—loses jurisdiction to revoke or modify the order. This power shifts to the government under Section 19, which allows for revocation or modification at any time, independent of the Advisory Board’s role. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tariq Ahmad Dar vs. State of J&K (2017), the judgment affirms that pre-approval, the authority retains flexibility under the General Clauses Act, but post-approval, such decisions must emanate from higher echelons.

Delving deeper into the qualitative differences in handling representations, the court draws extensively from Supreme Court precedents. In Ankit Ashok Jalan vs. Union of India (2020), it is emphasized that considerations by the government and Advisory Board are distinct, with the former required to act expeditiously and independently. The judgment categorizes scenarios for representation disposal—before, just before, after reference to the Board, or post its decision—insisting on “utmost expedition” to avoid unconstitutional delays, as reiterated in Pankaj Kumar Chakrabarty vs. State of West Bengal (1969). In Pinka’s case, the representation’s mishandling—rejected invalidly by the Magistrate and left undecided by the Board—violated these principles, rendering the detention untenable. The court also references Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs. District Magistrate Jabalpur (2021), underscoring that governmental review cannot await the Board’s input, as the scopes are “qualitatively different.”

A significant portion of the judgment addresses the substantive flaws in the grounds of detention, labeling them as “vague, absurd, and baseless.” Quoting at length from a Division Bench decision in Showkat Ali vs. UT of J&K (2024), Justice Koul distinguishes between mere “allegations” (unverifiable imputations) and “charges” (specific, verifiable ones), arguing that preventive detention demands the latter to afford the detenu a fair chance at rebuttal. Vague grounds, the court posits, reduce the right to representation under Article 22(5) to a “mirage,” imperiling Article 21’s guarantee of life and liberty. The Showkat Ali ruling, which the judgment reproduces extensively, mandates that detaining authorities scrutinize police dossiers for prima facie material, ensuring charges are substantial rather than fanciful. In Pinka’s instance, the absence of specifics—such as dates, times, or precise acts—smacked of non-application of mind, allowing only bare denials rather than targeted defenses.

This critique extends to the broader application of the PSA, a law often criticized for its draconian provisions enabling detentions without trial for up to two years. In Jammu and Kashmir, where the Act has been invoked thousands of times since its enactment, cases like Pinka’s highlight allegations of misuse against political dissenters and activists. Background on Pinka, as previously reported, reveals a man who transitioned from alleged past associations to civic engagement. He ran a small shop in Phagsoo, contested local elections for Sarpanch and District Development Council positions, and served as Block General Secretary for the Jammu and Kashmir Apni Party before campaigning for Aam Aadmi Party’s Mehraj Malik in the 2024 Assembly polls. Malik, now Doda’s MLA, had publicly decried the targeting of his supporters shortly after Pinka’s arrest, though without direct naming. Police labeled him an “Over Ground Worker” (OGW), a term for civilian aides to militants, citing efforts to incite communal discord, but critics questioned this amid his electoral pursuits and acquitted cases.

The court’s insistence on material substantiation echoes wider judicial trends quashing PSA orders for procedural lapses. For instance, a recent High Court ruling quashed a similar detention of an ex-policeman, citing non-application of mind by authorities. Similarly, in February, the court termed another preventive measure against a Jammu newspaper owner as a “witch-hunt,” criticizing the weaponization of laws against journalists and activists. Amnesty International’s reports on PSA detentions have long flagged patterns of arbitrary use, with courts quashing orders for lacking evidence, as in a 2009 case where a similar habeas petition succeeded.

In quashing the order without addressing all grounds—deeming the procedural and substantive flaws sufficient—Justice Koul directed Pinka’s release unless required in another case, and ordered the return of detention records. This ruling not only restores Pinka’s freedom after over six months in custody but also serves as a cautionary tale for authorities. In a region grappling with post-Article 370 transitions, where preventive detentions spiked amid security concerns, such judgments reinforce the judiciary’s role as a bulwark against executive excess. Legal experts suggest it could embolden more challenges, potentially curbing the PSA’s blanket application.

As Jammu and Kashmir navigates its evolving political landscape, with figures like Pinka embodying grassroots activism, the decision prompts reflection on balancing security imperatives with democratic rights. The administration’s silence on the quashing leaves open questions about accountability, but for Pinka’s family and supporters, it marks a hard-won victory against what they perceive as targeted harassment. In the Chenab Valley‘s rugged terrain, where local politics often intersects with administrative scrutiny, this case may signal a shift toward greater judicial oversight, ensuring that preventive measures do not devolve into tools of suppression.

Follow us on

Anzer Ayoob

Anzer Ayoob is the Founder and Chief Editor to The Chenab Times