In a significant rebuke to preventive detention powers, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has set aside the detention of AAP MLA Mehraj Malik under the Public Safety Act, clearing the way for his release after months in custody.
Malik, the lone Aam Aadmi Party legislator in Jammu and Kashmir, had been behind bars since September 2025 after the Doda District Magistrate invoked the PSA, accusing him of conduct allegedly harmful to public order. The detention followed a confrontation involving the then Deputy Commissioner of Doda.
But the High Court found the foundation of that detention wanting.
Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani drew a sharp distinction between administrative inconvenience and genuine threats to public order, holding that irritation caused to officials or friction involving a legislator cannot, by itself, be elevated into a disruption of societal peace.
The ruling underscored a constitutional line often blurred in preventive detention cases: a breach of law and order is not automatically a threat to public order. For the latter to exist, the Court said, there must be a tangible effect on the community at large, not merely allegations of obstructing officials or provoking institutional discomfort.
The judgment also questioned why preventive detention was used at all when ordinary criminal law had already been set in motion. If criminal proceedings were available and active, the Court reasoned, resorting to the PSA appeared excessive and unjustified, amounting to an infringement of Malik’s fundamental rights.
Authorities had relied on a police dossier citing 18 FIRs and 16 daily diary reports stretching from 2014 to 2025, painting Malik as a repeat disruptor involved in protests, alleged interference in public offices and unrest linked to a controversy over relocation of a health centre in Doda.
The Court, however, was unconvinced.
It noted that several of the cases cited were dated, disconnected from the detention order, or related to protests and election-related conduct rather than acts warranting preventive incarceration. Many appeared to concern political agitation and public grievances rather than conduct threatening social stability.
The bench was equally critical of the detention order itself, observing that it mirrored the police dossier almost verbatim, suggesting a mechanical exercise rather than an independent application of mind by the detaining authority.
Another serious flaw identified was procedural. Material relied upon against Malik — including electronic evidence such as videos — was not supplied to him, depriving him of a meaningful opportunity to challenge the detention. The Court held this struck at the heart of constitutional safeguards available to a detenu.
Malik had challenged his detention through a habeas corpus petition, arguing the action was politically driven, rooted in bias, and unsupported by any immediate or grave threat to public order. The Court’s ruling substantially accepted that challenge.
With the detention quashed, Malik walked out of jail Tuesday morning, marking a dramatic legal victory and a notable judicial reminder that preventive detention powers are not beyond scrutiny.
