Mere Possession of Books Cannot Justify Preventive Detention: J&K&L High Court

Summary: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court at Srinagar, in Shafat Maqbool Wani v. UT of J&K and others, HCP No. 312/2025, quashed preventive detention order No. 27-DMK/PSA of 2025 dated 13.09.2025 issued by the District Magistrate, Kupwara. The detenue had been implicated in FIR No. 69/2025 under Sections 13, 17 and 18 of the UAPA and Section 7/25 of the Arms Act but had already secured bail from the Special Judge, NIA, Jammu. The Court found that the detaining authority had failed to identify any specific prejudicial or subversive activity demonstrating a threat to the security of the State. It rejected the assertion that separatist ideology could be attributed to the detenue merely because his father was a former militant who surrendered in 1990. The Court also held that allegedly anti-national literature had been wrongly attributed to the detenue as its author. Being an academic scholar, he could reasonably possess varied literary material, and mere possession of books bearing dispiriting titles did not ipso facto make him a criminal warranting preventive detention. Relying upon the principles stated by the Supreme Court in Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, the High Court found non-application of mind and an absence of compelling reasons for detention. It consequently quashed the detention order and directed the detenue’s immediate release from preventive custody.

Mere Possession of Books With Dispiriting Titles Is No Crime: J&K&L HC

It is entirely in the fitness of things that while displaying pragmatism of the highest order, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court at Srinagar in Shafat Maqbool Wani v. UT of J&K and others in Case No.: HCP No. 312/2025 that was conducted through virtual mode and reserved on 13.08.2026 and then pronounced on 02.09.2026 and then finally uploaded on 03.09.2026 has minced absolutely just no words to hold indubitably that mere possession of books with dispiriting titles does not ipso facto make the detenue a criminal against whom preventive detention is required to be invoked. We thus see that the Court quashed the Public Safety Act (PSA) charges against a north Kashmir scholar. It needs to be noted that the observation came a year after the J&K administration in August 2025 banned 25 books – most of them on Kashmir history on the ground of “promoting secessionism sentiment and false narratives”.

Challenge to Preventive Detention Order

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court at Srinagar sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has challenged detention order bearing No. 27-DMK/PSA of 2025 dated 13.09.2025, for short to be referred as impugned order, issued by District Magistrate, Kupwara, for short detaining authority, whereby Sh. Shafat Maqbool Wani @ Shaf S/o Mohammad Maqbool Wani R/o Kukroosa Vilgam A/p Khanbal-B Handwara District, Kupwara, for short to be referred as detenue, has been placed under preventive detention so as to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are detrimental to the security of the State.”

Petitioner Alleges Non-Application of Mind

As we see, the Bench then specifies in para 2 stating that, “It has been contended that there has been non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as the said authority has acted mechanically while issuing the impugned order of detention by relying solely upon FIR No. 69/2025, u/s 7/25 Arms Act, 13, 17, & 18, of the UAP Act, of Police Station Handwara, in which the detenue was already bailed out by the competent court of law (Special Judge, NIA, Jammu) in terms of order dated 13.09.2025 after rejecting the application of NIA seeking extension of remand beyond 155 days in terms of order dated 08.09.2025. It has been averred that the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and that the same have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It has been contended that grounds of detention are vague and non-existent, on the basis of which no prudent man can make an effective representation. It has been further contended that there were no compelling reasons for the detaining authority to issue the impugned order of detention.”

Respondents Defend Detention Order

On the other hand, we see that the Bench then observes in para 3 that, “The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have contended that the impugned detention order has been passed after proper application of mind. It has been further contended that none of the rights of the petitioner has been violated by the respondents. It has been averred that the petitioner was involved in the activities which are detrimental to the security of the State and the same has been confirmed and verified by the detaining authority before passing the impugned order of detention. It has been averred that entire material, relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order, has been furnished to the detenue and the contents of the same were read over and explained to him.”

Further, the Bench mentions in para 4 that, “It has been further contended that the detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention. It has been averred in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the order has been issued validly and legally. It has also been contended that the detention of the detenue has been ordered strictly in accordance with the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act. The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.”

Grounds Relied Upon for Preventive Detention

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 6 disclosing that, “In the grounds of detention, the respondents have stated inter alia that the detenue has been brought up in a family having separatist ideology and as such, the anti-India and separatist feelings have got inculcated in the detenue since childhood, his father was an ex-militant affiliated with terrorist organization Al-Barq who has surrendered in the year 1990. It is also stated in the grounds of detention that the detenue had received many invitations for attending international conferences, viz. Middle Eastern South Asian and African Studies Graduate Students Conference at Columbia University and Eighth Annual South Asia Conference at Dublin City University. The petitioner/detenue has also been shown to be involved in case FIR No. 69/2025 for the offences punishable in terms of Sections 13, 17, 18 UAP Act of Police Station Handwara. It is also reflected in the grounds that anti national literature was seized from the possession of the petitioner included a book authored by the petitioner namely “Construction of an Islamic Order in Hindutva reimagination”; “The saffronisation of occupied Kashmir, Demystifing Hindutva Settlers, Colonial Designers”.”

Principal Grounds Urged Against Detention

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 7 mentioning that, “Although the petitioner has urged a number of grounds in the writ petition, for assailing the impugned order of detention, however, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has laid emphasis on

i) Non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority for having failed to mention any specific activity of the detenue anywhere in the grounds that may demonstrate such activities to be prejudicial to the maintenance of security of state;

ii) Except for his involvement in case FIR no. 69/2025 of Police Station, Handwara, no prejudicial activity even for namesake has been attributed to the petitioner;

iii) That there were no compelling reasons for the detaining authority to pass the impugned order of detention.”

Detaining Authority Failed to Establish Prejudicial Activity

It would be instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in para 8 noting that, “Although, the respondents have reflected in the counter affidavit as also in the grounds of detention that the detenue had been granted bail, therefore, they have not been oblivious to this fact, however, at the same time, it can very safely be said that the detaining authority does not appear to have made any effort to derive satisfaction as regards the prejudicial activity of the petitioner/detenue warranting his preventive detention. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in detaining the detenue, carries substance. The Apex Court in case titled Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana reported as (2023) 9 SCC 587 has laid down certain principles where the order of detention would be declared bad in law. Paragraph no. 28, being relevant is taken note of herein, thus:

“28. In the circumstances of a given case, a Constitutional Court when called upon to test the legality of orders of preventive detention would be entitled to examine whether:

(i) the order is based on the requisite satisfaction, albeit subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the absence of such satisfaction as to the existence of a matter of fact or law, upon which validity of the exercise of the power is predicated, would be the sine qua non for the exercise of the power not being satisfied;

(ii) in reaching such requisite satisfaction, the detaining authority has applied its mind to all relevant circumstances and the same is not based on material extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute;

(iii) power has been exercised for achieving the purpose for which it has been conferred, or exercised for an improper purpose, not authorised by the statute, and is therefore ultra vires;

(iv) the detaining authority has acted independently or under the dictation of another body;

(v) the detaining authority, by reason of self-created rules of policy or in any other manner not authorized by the governing statute, has disabled itself from applying its mind to the facts of each individual case;

(vi) the satisfaction of the detaining authority rests on materials which are of rationally probative value, and the detaining authority has given due regard to the matters as per the statutory mandate;

(vii) the satisfaction has been arrived at bearing in mind existence of a live and proximate link between the past conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain him or is based on material which is stale;

(viii) the ground(s) for reaching the requisite satisfaction is/are such which an individual, with some degree of rationality and prudence, would consider as connected with the fact and relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry in respect whereof the satisfaction is to be reached;

(ix) the grounds on which the order of preventive detention rests are not vague but are precise, pertinent and relevant which, with sufficient clarity, inform the detenu the satisfaction for the detention, giving him the opportunity to make a suitable representation; and

(x) the timelines, as provided under the law, have been strictly adhered to.”

Family Background Cannot Justify Preventive Detention

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 9 that, “The only thing that emerges from the perusal of the grounds of detention, and the counter affidavit, filed against the petition in hand, is that the detenue has inculcated a separatist ideology since his childhood, for, his father has been an ex militant having surrendered in the year 1990. The said assertion is delusory and the preventive detention, ordered so conveniently on such imaginary belief, is nothing but an unmindful exercise of power.”

Possession of Books Does Not Make an Academic Scholar a Criminal

Most forthrightly, most significantly, most rationally and so also most commendably, the Bench then encapsulates in para 9 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “It also needs to be emphasized here that the respondents have not shown any subversive activity against the name of petitioner/detenue which compelled them to take recourse to preventive detention. The alleged anti-national literature shown to have been seized from the detenue has also presumably weighed with the respondents to brand the detenue as an anti-national, however, the said literature has wrongly been attributed to the detenue having been authored by him. The learned counsel for the petitioner is quite justified in submitting that the petitioner, being an academic scholar, is expected to be in possession of variety of literary means, therefore, a mere possession of the books with dispiriting titles does not ipso facto make the petitioner/detenue a criminal against whom the preventive detention was required to be invoked.”

High Court Quashes Detention and Directs Immediate Release

Resultantly, the Bench then directs and holds in para 10 that, “In view of above, the petition succeeds and is allowed as such, in consequence whereof, the impugned detention order bearing No. 27-DMK/PSA of 2025 dated 13.09.2025, issued by respondent no. 2 is quashed. The detenue Shafat Maqbool Wani S/o Mohammad Maqbool Wani R/o Kukroosa, Tehsil Vilgam, District Kupwara, A/P Khunbal, Handwara is directed to be released from preventive custody forthwith.”

Finally, the Bench then concludes aptly by directing and holding in para 11 that, “The detention record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents.”

Conclusion

In conclusion, we thus see that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court at Srinagar has made it unmistakably clear that mere possession of books with dispiriting titles is no crime. So there can be definitely just no gainsaying that the Public Safety Act (PSA) charges against the north Kashmir scholar and detenue Shafat Maqbool Wani was very rightly quashed by the court! There can be just no denying or disputing it!