Last Updated:
The court directed the immediate release of the detenue, Imtiyaz Ahmad Ganie, aged 34, while highlighting a glaring failure on the part of the District Magistrate of Anantnag
The court ruled that this again indicated a “non-application of mind” on the part of the detaining authority.
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently quashed a preventive detention order against an Anantnag resident calling out a “shameless” attempt of the local administration to justify the order based on a case of mistaken identity.
The court directed the immediate release of the detenue, Imtiyaz Ahmad Ganie, aged 34, while highlighting a glaring failure on the part of the District Magistrate of Anantnag to apply his mind to the facts.
Recommended Stories
The judgment, pronounced on September 3, 2025, by Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, came in response to a habeas corpus petition filed by the detenue’s father, Ab Majeed Ganie. The petition challenged a detention order dated April 20, 2024, issued under the provisions of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. The order was premised on the detenue allegedly acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the Union Territory.
According to the petitioner, his son, a “peace-loving citizen,” was arbitrarily arrested on April 15, 2024, by Police Station Anantnag and subsequently shifted to Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. The petition argued that the detention order was flawed due to “non-application of mind” by the detaining authority, a failure to furnish the necessary material to the detenue, and a complete disregard for procedural safeguards.
The High Court’s perused the “grounds of detention,” which revealed a critical and fatal error. Court noted that the respondents had “intended to detain another individual” but, “on account of mistaken identity,” had detained Imtiyaz Ahmad Ganie instead. The grounds of detention explicitly referenced a different individual, Imtiyaz Ahmad Wani, who was apprehended in connection with an FIR registered under various sections of the UAP Act, Arms Act, and Explosive Substances Act, following the arrest of a “hybrid terrorist” from the JeM outfit.
The judgment quoted directly from the detention record, which stated that while Imtiyaz Ahmad Wani’s involvement could not be ruled out, the “evidence collected against the individual is not sufficient to the extent to book him in the case under substantive laws”. This admission, the court found, “goes to the very root of the impugned order”.
“The vitiating fact appearing in the grounds of detention is worth serious notice as admittedly the detenue is not involved in a criminal case on the basis whereof he has been detained,” the judgment read.
It further stated that the detaining authority was “shamelessly trying support for the issuance of the impugned order from material which does not speak of the involvement of the detenue”.
Court concluded that as a result, the “foundation on the basis whereof the detenue has been implicated and detained under preventive detention has collapsed by default”.
The High Court also took exception to the respondent’s counter-affidavit. While the respondents’ counsel had contended that the detention was valid and all statutory safeguards were followed, court found the affidavit lacking.
It pointed out that the counter-affidavit made a “general assertion” that authorities have the power to order detention even after bail has been granted, but it failed to provide “any specific averment” regarding the detenue’s bail.
The court ruled that this again indicated a “non-application of mind” on the part of the detaining authority.
Drawing on Supreme Court precedent, Justice Kazmi’s judgment referenced the case of Ameena Begum vs. State of Telangana. This case, court noted, establishes that a detention order cannot stand if it is an outcome of a non-application of mind. The judgment also cited Jai Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, which highlights that the liberty of a citizen is a “serious matter” that should not be trifled with in a “casual, indifferent and routine manner”.
“The court is convinced that the petitioner has been able to prove that the detaining authority has not applied its mind while issuing the impugned order,” the judgment stated.
With the petition allowed, the court quashed the detention order and directed the respondents to “release the detenue forthwith”.
About the Author
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr…Read More
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr… Read More
September 12, 2025, 16:21 IST
Loading comments…
Read More
