In a significant ruling delivered on September 3, 2025, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court struck down the preventive detention of Bhupinder Kumar, also known as Pappu, who had been booked under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA). Justice M.A. Chowdhary presided over the case, which has drawn attention for the court’s sharp observations on constitutional safeguards and personal liberty.
Background
The detention order (No. PSA/137) had been issued by the District Magistrate, Kathua on January 16, 2025, citing Kumar's alleged involvement in illegal transportation of bovines and multiple FIRs under IPC provisions and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Authorities argued that his activities were "prejudicial to public order" and justified detention to prevent further offences.
Read also:- Meghalaya High Court to Get New Acting Chief Justice from September 6 After Retirement
However, Kumar’s daughter Rohani Devi, represented by Advocate Jagpaul Singh, challenged the order. The petition claimed that the detention was passed mechanically, without informing Kumar of his legal rights, and relied on FIRs that had already been used in earlier detention orders quashed by the court.
Court’s Observations
Justice Chowdhary minutely examined the detention record and highlighted several lapses. First, the detainee was not clearly told that he had the right to file a representation before the detaining authority itself, nor was the time limit for such representation specified.
Read also:- President Approves Appointment of New Chief Justice for Bombay High Court
Citing earlier precedents, the judge remarked,
"Partial communication of a right, where the time limit is of essence, vitiates the fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution."
Secondly, the court found merit in the claim that all documents forming the basis of the detention were not properly supplied or explained in a language the detainee understood. The judge stressed that failure to provide complete material effectively denies a person the ability to make a meaningful representation.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea to Quash Cheque Bounce Case, Imposes Costs on Petitioner
Another crucial flaw was the delay in handling Kumar’s representation. Records showed it took the government 52 days to act upon it. The bench noted this slackness as a serious violation, saying the State must act "at the earliest" in matters where personal liberty is curtailed.
The court also criticized the detaining authority for ignoring the fact that Kumar's earlier detention order from 2023 had been quashed. Using the same FIRs again for fresh detention, the judge held, violated established Supreme Court precedents.
"Once a detention order is struck down, its grounds cannot be recycled for a new one," the order explained.
Decision
After weighing all these grounds, the High Court concluded that the preventive detention was arbitrary, mechanical, and in breach of constitutional safeguards.
The bench stated firmly,
"Preventive detention is a strong arm tactic of the State… it should be reserved only for exceptionally grave cases, not invoked at the drop of a hat."
Accordingly, the court allowed the petition and quashed Detention Order No. PSA/137 dated January 16, 2025. It directed that Bhupinder Kumar be released from custody immediately, unless required in any other case.
Case Title: Bhupinder Kumar @ Pappu vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors.
Case Number: HCP No. 43/2025
