The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently upheld the preventive detention of Mumtaz Ahmed under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), rejecting claims that withholding certain confidential information violated his rights.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Sanjay Dhar on April 7, 2025, came in response to a habeas corpus petition (HCP No. 118/2024) filed by Mumtaz Ahmed through his counsel, Mr. K. M. Bhatti. The petitioner had challenged the detention order passed by the District Magistrate of Poonch on July 26, 2024.
Read also: Justice Sanjeev Kumar Appointed Acting Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
According to the detention order, Mumtaz Ahmed was allegedly working as an Over Ground Worker (OGW) for Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), a banned terrorist group. Authorities claimed he was involved in:
- Assisting terrorist movements.
- Providing shelter and logistical support to militants.
- Spreading fear in the Poonch district.
- Maintaining contact with a wanted terrorist, Haq Nawaz, based in Saudi Arabia.
- Supporting PAFF (People’s Anti-Fascist Front), a JeM proxy outfit.
The authorities argued that his actions posed a significant threat to the security of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and the Indian State.
Mumtaz Ahmed’s counsel raised two primary objections:
- Non-supply of the full dossier, including a special intelligence report (Annexure-1), which allegedly hindered the petitioner from making an effective representation.
- Copy-paste of the police dossier into the detention order, suggesting a mechanical application of mind by the Detaining Authority.
The petitioner relied on judgments from similar cases including:
- Rameez Ahmed Lone vs. UT of J&K (2024)
- Abdul Hameet Khan vs. UT of J&K
- Khurshid Ahmed vs. UT of J&K (2024)
The Court acknowledged that the Annexure-1 (a special intelligence report by the District Special Branch) was not provided to the petitioner. However, it ruled that not all material must be shared if disclosing it would affect public interest or compromise national security.
Read also: J&K High Court: Chargesheet Document Index Doesn’t Fulfill Section 294 CrPC Requirement
“The copy of the intelligence report submitted by the District Special Branch could not have been supplied to the petitioner without compromising the public interest.” – Justice Sanjay Dhar
The judgment cited:
- Section 13(2) of the J&K Public Safety Act.
- Clause (6) of Article 22 of the Constitution.
Both provisions legally permit the Detaining Authority to withhold such information in the public interest.
The Court also referred to landmark cases:
- Wasi-ud-din Ahmed vs. D.M. Aligarh (1981) 4 SCC 521
- Mian Abdul Qayoom vs. UT of J&K (2020)
These decisions supported the principle that confidential intelligence need not be disclosed if it affects state security.
“Merely because confidential information was not provided to the petitioner, which in the circumstances, would have been against the public interest, it cannot be stated that constitutional and statutory rights of the petitioner have been violated…” – Justice Sanjay Dhar
Rejecting the second argument, the Court concluded that the Detaining Authority had applied its mind independently and was not merely reproducing the police dossier.
The Authority had specifically noted Mumtaz Ahmed’s links to international terrorist operatives and his ongoing support for militant outfits.
“The grounds of detention clearly indicate that the Detaining Authority has applied its mind after noticing the facts mentioned in the dossier of detention.” – Justice Sanjay Dhar
The Court stressed that some repetition of facts from the police dossier does not automatically indicate non-application of mind.
After reviewing the complete detention record and arguments from both sides, the High Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the claims.
“For what has been discussed hereinabove, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.” – Justice Sanjay Dhar
Finding no merit in the petition, the Court thus dismissed it.
Case Title: Mumtaz Ahmed th. Nisar Ahmed Vs UT Of J&K
