In a verdict shaped heavily by a trail of Facebook posts, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the preventive detention of a Kupwara resident accused of using social media to stir unrest and fuel extremist sentiment.
The case revolved around allegations that the man had been uploading content online that, according to the authorities, carried the potential to radicalise young users and amplify anti-national narratives. The detention, ordered under the J&K Public Safety Act, was challenged through a habeas corpus petition—one the Court ultimately refused to entertain.
The judge found no breach in procedure. The record, the Court said, showed that the detainee had received the grounds of detention along with the supporting material. Among the documents presented were screenshots of the man’s Facebook activity—images the Court described as explicitly capable of pushing impressionable users toward dangerous ideologies.
The petitioner argued that the detention order was a mechanical copy of the police dossier. The Court disagreed, noting that the detaining authority had engaged with the evidence, formed its own opinion, and did not simply lift language from police inputs.
Another claim—this one asserting that authorities should have used ordinary criminal law instead of a preventive detention statute—also fell flat. The Court observed that the nature of the posts themselves had convinced officials that swift preventive action was needed, leaving no room for slower, conventional legal processes.
The detention order, issued by the District Magistrate of Kupwara in February 2024, had been criticised by the petitioner as unconstitutional and procedurally defective. He claimed incomplete supply of material and lack of independent evaluation by the authorities. The government countered that the detainee had received a full set of documents, including translations, and that the decision was made only after reviewing intelligence inputs on his online activity.
In the end, the Court sided with the State. After examining the record, it found no constitutional lapses, no procedural gaps, and no indication that the decision-makers had acted without applying their minds.
The preventive detention stands.
