The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed a preventive detention order against Mohd. Yousuf, holding that incidents arising from personal disputes and directed against individuals cannot, by themselves, be treated as a threat to public order warranting preventive detention.
Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the repeated registration of criminal cases, without more, does not automatically justify preventive detention when the incidents do not disturb the normal life of the community.
Background
The case arose from detention order DMP/PSA/01 of 2026 dated April 27, 2026, issued by the District Magistrate, Poonch under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act.
The detention grounds referred to four FIRs registered against Yousuf at Police Station Mendhar. They related to incidents from 2018, 2019, 2024 and 2026.
The petitioner argued that the incidents were connected with personal enmity and, even if accepted, raised a “law and order” issue rather than a “public order” issue. The respondents defended the detention by relying on Yousuf’s criminal antecedents and alleged continuing prejudicial activities.
Justice Sanjay Dhar relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana to explain that courts can examine whether a detaining authority properly understood the limits of its statutory power.
The Court observed,
“While considering the legality of an order of preventive detention, the Court can make an inquiry into the authority’s notion of its power, without being concerned about the sufficiency or otherwise of the material on the basis of which the detention order has been passed.”
The High Court then examined whether the incidents cited in the detention order had the potential to disturb public order or merely constituted breaches of law and order.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, the Court explained that public order concerns the effect of an incident on the community, while every breach of law does not necessarily disturb public order.
The Court also considered Kuso Sah v. State of Bihar, where the Supreme Court had cautioned that preventive detention is an extraordinary power and cannot be applied through a lenient interpretation.
After examining the four FIRs, Justice Dhar found that the incidents were connected with personal disputes between Yousuf and the complainant or injured parties. The Court noted that the incidents affected private individuals and did not, merely because of their repetition, disturb the flow of community life.
The Court remarked,
“A perusal of the particulars of the incidents, which form basis of the four FIRs registered against the petitioner, would reveal that these incidents are confined to personal enmity between the petitioner and the complainant party. These incidents are individualistic in nature.”
The Court further noted that merely being charged with multiple offences could not, in isolation, justify preventive detention.
The High Court also considered the fact that the State had already sought cancellation of Yousuf’s bail in the 2026 case. It found that the ordinary criminal law was sufficient to address the situation.
Justice Dhar held that the detaining authority had failed to properly appreciate the distinction between public order and law and order.
The High Court held that preventive detention could not be invoked in the circumstances of the case. It consequently quashed detention order DMP/PSA/01 of 2026 dated April 27, 2026 and directed that Mohd.
Yousuf be released forthwith, if he was not required in any other case.
Case Details
Case Title: Mohd. Yousuf through his wife Farida Bi v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Others
Case Number: HCP No. 44/2026
Judge: Justice Sanjay Dhar
Decision Date: September 18, 2026
