Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Abdul Basit Paul vs Ut Of J&K & Ors on 14 November, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 06.11.2025
Pronounced on: 14.11.2025
Uploaded on: 14.11.2025
Whether the operative part
or full judgment is
pronounced: Full
HCP No.323/2024
ABDUL BASIT PAUL
...PETITIONER/APPELLANT(S)
Through: -Mr. B. A. Tak, Advocate
Vs.
UT OF J&K & ORS ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: -Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy. AG.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE.
JUDGMENT
1) The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged detention order bearing No.191/DMS/ PSA/2024 dated 12.09.2024, passed by District Magistrate, Shopian-respondent No.2, whereby Abdul Basit Paul ("the detenue"), has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the UT/Country.
2) The petitioner has contended that the impugned order of detention is illegal, unconstitutional and bad in the eyes of law, inasmuch as the detaining authority has not followed the constitutional and statutory procedural safeguards as HCP No.323/2024 Page 1 of 6 provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. It has been contended that no specific allegations have been attributed to the petitioner in the grounds of detention and the same are bereft of specific details. It has been further contended that the grounds of detention are vague and cryptic and non-existent. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are vague and cryptic in nature. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are replica of the police dossier. It has also been contended that whole of the material which formed the basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner. It has been further contended that the representation filed by the detenue against his detention has not been considered.
3) The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing their reply affidavit, wherein they have contended that the activities of the detenue are highly prejudicial to security of the State. It has been pleaded that whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority has been furnished to the detenue and the same was read over and explained to him and 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 is further contented in the reply affidavit that all the statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied HCP No.323/2024 Page 2 of 6 with by the detaining authority and that the impugned order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents, besides other judgments, have also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Haradhan Saha v. State of W. B., (1975) 3 SCC 198 and have also produced the detention record to lend credence to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.
4) I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
5) Although the petitioner has raised a number of grounds for assailing the impugned order of detention yet, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis on the following grounds:
(I) That there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in formulating the grounds of detention, inasmuch as the same appears to be the Xerox copy of the dossier of detention. (II) That the grounds of detention formulated by the detaining authority are vague, on the basis of which no prudent person would be able to make a representation.
(III) That the representation made by the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been considered.
(IV) That whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has not been supplied to the HCP No.323/2024 Page 3 of 6 petitioner which prevented him from making an effective and suitable representation against the impugned order of detention.
6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7) So far as the first ground urged by the petitioner is concerned, in this regard a perusal of the grounds of detention and the contents of the dossier of detention would reveal that there is no similarity in the two documents. The detaining authority, after noticing the backgrounds facts, as narrated in the dossier of detention, has clearly drawn its satisfaction that the petitioner is a hardcore OGW of LeT/TRF terrorist outfits and is deeply involved in anti-national and anti-social activities and, thus, his activities are prejudicial to the security of UT of J&K/Country. In these circumstances, it cannot be stated that there has been any non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in formulating the grounds of detention.
8) The contention of the petitioner with regard to vagueness of the grounds of detention also appears to be without any substance. A closer look at the grounds of detention would reveal that there are allegations that the petitioner is in contact with active terrorist, namely, Shahid Ahmad Kuttay, of Chotipora, Sedow, working as an OGW for him and providing all kinds of support like transportation, food and shelter to the HCP No.323/2024 Page 4 of 6 said terrorist. It is also alleged that the petitioner has developed contacts with active terrorists operating in the district like Abid Ramzan Sheikh and Shahid Ahmad Kuttay.
Thus, there are specific allegations made in the grounds of detention against the petitioner and in these circumstances, it cannot be stated that the grounds of detention are vague, as has been claimed by the petitioner.
9) So far as the contention of the petitioner with regard to non-consideration of his representation is concerned, in this regard a perusal of the detention record would reveal that representation dated 26.09.2024 of the petitioner has been considered by the Advisory Board in its meeting dated 14.10.2024, whereafter the same has been rejected. The result of consideration has been conveyed to the petitioner vide communication dated 21.10.2024, which bears signatures of the petitioner in token of having received a copy thereof. Thus, the record of the detention tends to show that the representation of the petitioner has been duly considered by the Advisory Board and the result of consideration has been duly conveyed to him. The contention of the petitioner is, therefore, without any substance.
10) So far as contended of the petitioner with regard to non- furnishing of whole of the material and the translated version thereof is concerned, in this regard a perusal of the detention HCP No.323/2024 Page 5 of 6 record would reveal that the petitioner has received copies of PSA warrant (01 leaf), notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (03 leaves) and dossier of detention (four leaves) (total 09 leaves). These documents constitute the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention have been formulated by the detaining authority. It is also recorded in the execution report that the contents of the detention warrant and grounds of detention have been read over to the petitioner in English and explained to him in Urdu/Kashmiri languages. Thus, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has not been furnished whole of the material that has been relied upon by the detaining authority for drawing satisfaction about the imperative need of detention of the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner in this regard is without any merit.
11) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of detention. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.
12) The detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.
(Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 14.11.2025 "Bhat Altaf-Secy"
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
HCP No.323/2024 Page 6 of 6