The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has recently determined that the inclusion of just one irrelevant factor is enough to invalidate an order of preventive detention.

Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, a single-judge, expressed that it is challenging to determine how and to what degree the irrelevant factor influenced the decision of the appropriate authority and their belief in the necessity of detaining the individual in question.

Therefore, the Court emphasized that even a single irrelevant factor would be enough to invalidate a preventive detention order, as stated in its ruling issued on October 5th.

The Court ruled that the presence of just one irrelevant factor is adequate to invalidate the order of preventive detention. This is because it is difficult to determine how and to what extent this irrelevant factor influenced the judgment of the appropriate authority, leading them to believe that it was necessary to detain the individual in order to prevent actions prejudicial to public order or state security.

As a result, the Court nullified the detention of Zubair Ahmad Khan, who had been detained by the District Magistrate of Anantnag under the Public Safety Act of 1978. This detention had been ordered in an attempt to prevent him from engaging in activities deemed detrimental to the security of the state.

Advocate Mukhtar A Makroo, who was representing the petitioner, argued that the allegations outlined in the grounds of detention were unclear and lacked specificity. It was contended that no reasonable individual could effectively defend against the allegations because there were no specific details provided regarding the individuals with whom the petitioner was purportedly associated or had allegedly provided support, food, or shelter.

Makroo also argued that the petitioner's detention was based on the opinion of the detaining authority, which in turn relied on the contents of a dossier, FIR (First Information Report), and other supporting documents.

However, he pointed out that the crucial fact was that neither was any FIR mentioned in the dossier, nor were complete details of it provided in the grounds of detention or made available to him. He also argued that the reasons for detention closely resembled the information in the dossier and indicated a lack of thoughtful consideration on the part of the authority responsible for the detention. He also argued that the reasons for detention closely resembled the information in the dossier and indicated a lack of thoughtful consideration on the part of the authority responsible for the detention.

In his response affidavit, Government Advocate Alla ud din Ganai asserted that the actions carried out by the detainee posed a significant threat to the security of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.

Upon reviewing the arguments presented by both parties, the High Court observed that the grounds for detention lacked clarity and precision, as they did not specify any particular date, month, or year associated with the activities attributed to the petitioner-detainee.

The Court stated that incorporating an irrelevant or non-existent reason alongside other legitimate ones violates the detenu's first rights, and including an unclear or vague reason among other well-defined grounds infringes upon the second right. In both scenarios, the detenu's constitutional rights are violated, allowing them to seek legal remedies from the Court.

The High Court asserted that it is not permitted to assess the adequacy of the grounds for detention, nor can it replace its own judgment with the subjective determination made by the detaining authority.

The Court clarified that if any of the grounds or reasons that contributed to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority are found to be non-existent, misconceived, or irrelevant, then the detention order would be considered invalid. Consequently, the Court decided to annul the petitioner's detention based on this finding.