27/04/2026
“PSA Can’t Be Invoked for Official Annoyance”: J&K HC Quashes MLA Mehraj Malik’s Detention
Srinagar/Jammu, April 27: In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on Monday quashed the preventive detention of AAP MLA Mehraj Din Malik under the Public Safety Act (PSA), holding that mere annoyance caused to government officials cannot justify invocation of preventive detention laws.
Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani, while allowing the habeas corpus petition, observed that although the detenue was alleged to have hindered government authorities in the discharge of their duties, there was no material to indicate any public unrest or disturbance affecting society at large.
The Court categorically held that any annoyance or ill will expressed by public servants against the MLA, in his official capacity, does not amount to “public disorder.”
It emphasized that for an act to fall within the ambit of “public order,” there must be a direct and tangible impact on societal harmony and the community as a whole.
Drawing a clear distinction between “law and order” and “public order,” the Court reiterated that every violation of law may affect order, but it rises to the level of public order only when it impacts the public at large. In the present case, such a threshold was found to be absent.
The case arose from a detention order dated September 8, 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Doda, directing Malik’s detention in District Jail Kathua on grounds that his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The detention was based on a police dossier citing multiple FIRs and allegations that Malik incited protests, obstructed officials, and disrupted administrative functioning, particularly in connection with a dispute over shifting of a health centre in Doda in September 2025.
However, the Court found several legal infirmities in the detention. It noted that the material relied upon did not establish any proximate or direct link to disturbance of public order. The Court also observed that several FIRs were stale and that the grounds of detention appeared to be a mechanical reproduction of the police dossier, indicating non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
Further, the Court held that non-supply of relevant material, including electronic evidence relied upon by the authorities, deprived the detenue of his right to make an effective representation. It also took note of the unexplained delay in deciding Malik’s representation, which further vitiated the detention.
Rejecting the stand of the administration, the Court reiterated that preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal law and must strictly adhere to constitutional safeguards.
In view of these findings, the High Court quashed the detention order and directed Malik’s release, holding the preventive detention to be legally unsustainable.
