In a judgment pronounced on December 5, 2025, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by Waseem Ahmad Dar, challenging his detention under the Public Safety Act (PSA).
Justice Sanjay Dhar upheld the order issued by District Magistrate Kupwara in February this year, concluding that authorities had a valid basis to fear that Dar’s online activities could provoke security disturbances in the region.
Inside Court the tension was visible as both sides argued whether preventive detention was truly necessary in this case.
Background
Dar also known locally as “Leepa” was taken into preventive custody after police submitted a dossier alleging he was uploading radicalizing and “anti-national” videos and posts on Facebook. Authorities stated that his social media activity posed a threat to public order and national security.
His counsel argued that the detention order was “illegal and unconstitutional” because not all supporting material was shared with the detainee, violating constitutional safeguards that allow a person to challenge detention effectively.
The matter was presented as HCP No.73/2024 before Justice Dhar, with Altamash Rashid representing the petitioner and Faheem Nisar Shah, GA, for the government.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the bench reviewed the entire detention record, which showed that Dar had received a packet of 23 documents related to his case, including the detention warrant, dossier, screenshots of his Facebook pages, and a translated copy of the detention grounds.
“The bench observed, ‘It cannot be stated that the petitioner has not been provided whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention.’”
The judge further rejected the claim that the detaining authority had merely “copy-pasted” the police dossier. He noted that after reviewing the material, officials reached their own conclusion that Dar’s alleged activities were “highly prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory.”
On another major argument why normal criminal procedure was not used instead of PSA the court observed that there was no pending FIR against Dar, nor any bail situation requiring cancellation. The judge said the authorities relied on intelligence reports and social media analysis, leaving them with preventive detention as a necessary step.
Decision
Justice Dhar firmly stated that preventive detention is permitted when authorities reasonably believe someone’s actions may endanger public security, even without a criminal case underway.
“The court found no ground to interfere with the impugned detention order,” ultimately dismissing the petition.
The judge also directed that detention records be returned to government counsel.
Case Title:- Waseem Ahmad Dar vs. Union Territory of J&K & Others
