In a significant ruling from the Srinagar Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, a Division Bench led by Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal on November 6, 2025, upheld the detention of Shaista Maqbool under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA).
The court dismissed her appeal, observing that the preventive detention was justified given her alleged involvement with operatives of the banned terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and her “potential to endanger the security of the Union Territory.”
Background
Shaista Maqbool had been detained in December 2023 under PSA Order No. 19/DMB/PSA of 2023, issued by the District Magistrate, Bandipora.
The authorities claimed that she was not only an “Overground Worker” (OGW) for Lashkar-e-Taiba but also maintained “deep personal links” with Musaib Lakhvi, nephew of Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, one of the masterminds behind the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.
According to the dossier, Shaista allegedly used social media, including a Facebook ID titled “Lakhvi Musaib”, and encrypted apps to exchange sensitive information about political figures and security forces with Pakistan-based handlers Abu Zehran and Abu Hans.
Her counsel, Advocate Mukhtar Ahmad Makroo, argued that the detention order was vague and lacked specific dates or evidence of recent activity. He contended that the authorities had failed to prove why “ordinary laws” were insufficient to act against her.
Court’s Observations
Justice Rajnesh Oswal, writing for the Bench, noted that the Detaining Authority had clearly identified specific persons linked with the appellant and detailed the nature of her communications. The Court found no merit in the argument that the grounds were vague or unsupported.
“The appellant’s alleged actions were not public but discreet, carried out through encrypted platforms. In such cases, concrete evidence is hard to secure,” the Bench observed.
Quoting from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rameshwar Lal Patwari v. State of Bihar (1968), the Bench reiterated that courts cannot sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority once such satisfaction is reasonably derived.
The judgment remarked,
“The formation of opinion about detention rests with the authority concerned. Courts are not appellate bodies in preventive detention matters.”
The Court also referred to Sasti v. State of West Bengal (1972) to explain that preventive detention could still be valid even if a person’s alleged acts amount to an offence under regular criminal law as long as the acts threaten public order or national security.
Decision
The High Court concluded that all constitutional safeguards were observed including supply of detention documents, opportunity for representation, and review by the Advisory Board, which had upheld the detention in December 2023.
Finding the Writ Court’s previous decision “unexceptionable,” the Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 139/2025) filed by Shaista Maqbool.
The court ordered,
“We do not find any merit in the instant intra-court appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed.”
With this, Shaista’s plea challenging her preventive detention stands rejected, and the High Court has reaffirmed the government’s authority to use the Public Safety Act in cases involving threats to the region’s integrity and peace.
Case Title: Shaista Maqbool v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Another
Case Number: LPA No. 139 of 2025
Advocates:
- For Appellant: Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad Makroo, Advocate
- For Respondents: Mr. Jehangir Ahmad Dar, Government Advocate
Date Pronounced: 6 November 2025
