In an appeal filed before the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court by the appellant whose activities were considered to be prejudicial to the security of Jammu & Kashmir, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal refrained from intervening into the judgment of the writ court while taking note of the appellant’s involvement in terrorist activities and dismissed the appeal.
The appellant, aggrieved by an order of detention dated 04-12-2023 issued in exercise of powers under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, preferred a writ petition, which was dismissed by the writ court by order dated 23-05-2025. In the present matter, the appellant filed an intra-court appeal to assail the said order, contending that the writ court failed to appreciate that there was no live link between the incidents reflected in the order of detention.
The appellant submitted that the representation submitted by her was not considered by the respondents as per law, and despite serious allegations, no First Information Report (FIR) was registered against her. The respondents contended that the appellant was having a love affair with a terrorist who was the nephew of a Pakistani terrorist, co-founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba, and one of the prime perpetrators of the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
The Court noted that the Superintendent of Police, Bandipora, had prepared detailed information for detaining the appellant. It was specifically mentioned that the appellant was an admirer of Lashkar-e-Taiba and that she had acted as an overground worker of the terrorist organization. The record also depicted that the appellant was romantically involved with the nephew of the co-founder of the said terrorist organization, who had carried out multiple terrorist activities from 2016 to 2018.
The Court stated that the appellant had developed contact with various local and foreign terrorists and identified with pseudo names like ‘Choti Behan’, etc. It was noted that the appellant had developed contacts with Pakistani handlers to provide vital information regarding the movement of political leaders and other protected persons.
The Court said that it was settled law that while exercising the power of judicial review, the constitutional courts cannot sit as a court of appeal over the subjective satisfaction derived by the detaining authority. It was said that once the detaining authority has derived its satisfaction based on the material before it, whether the material was sufficient for detention or not, is beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny.
The Court stated that the respondent had clearly stated with whom the appellant was involved, and thus it could not be said that she had been detained on vague or ambiguous grounds. Further, the Court said that the detaining authority took note of the appellant’s illegal activities and mentioned in the grounds of detention that the ordinary law of the land was insufficient to deter the appellant from her anti-national activities and that it was essential to avail the recourse of law for maintaining the integrity of J&K.
The Court referred to Sasti v. State of West Bengal (1972) 3 SCC 826 and noted that since the appellant was committing the illegal activities discreetly, it was not possible to obtain evidence of the same. Thus, the Court stated that there was no force in the contention of the appellant.
Lastly, the Court examined the judgment of the writ court and held that the same was unexceptionable. Thus, the Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed the same.
Appearances:
For Appellant – Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad Makroo
For Respondents – Mr. Jehangir Ahmad Dar, GA
