The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has asserted that personal liberty, a fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, cannot be arbitrarily curtailed based on unsubstantiated or generalized assertions made by the executive. This significant ruling came as Justice Rajesh Sekhri quashed a preventive detention order issued against a resident of Pulwama, who was accused in a narcotics case.
The individual, identified as Rayees Ahmad Hajam, aged 40 and a resident of Pulwama, had challenged the detention order. Justice Sekhri, in allowing the petition, directed the authorities to release Hajam immediately, provided he was not held in custody for any other ongoing legal matter. Information reaching Tahir Rihat suggests that Hajam was initially arrested on September 10, 2025, following the registration of a case at Police Station Khrew. The charges were filed under Sections 8 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, after authorities reportedly recovered a small quantity of heroin, measuring 1.3 grams, from his possession. He was subsequently granted interim bail later that month, a relief that was later confirmed by the court.
However, in December 2025, the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, issued a preventive detention order. This order was reportedly based on a police dossier that alleged Hajam was an integral part of a wider drug network and had continued his alleged illegal activities even while on bail. The court, in its deliberation, raised critical questions regarding the authorities’ approach. It specifically inquired why the prosecution or the Union Territory administration had not sought the cancellation of Hajam’s bail from the trial court or challenged the bail order in a higher judicial forum if there was concrete evidence of his continued involvement in criminal activities.
The court’s order highlighted the apparent lack of a clear procedural path taken by the detaining authorities. “One fails to understand what prevented the prosecution or the Union Territory from seeking cancellation of bail if the petitioner was found involved in similar activities,” the court observed, as reported by The Tribune. This query underscored the expectation that established legal mechanisms should be utilized before resorting to preventive detention.
Justice Sekhri further noted that while the grounds presented for detention painted a picture of Hajam as a habitual drug trafficker, the allegations lacked the specificity required to justify such a severe curtailment of liberty. The court’s detailed examination of the detention grounds revealed significant deficiencies. “On first blush, the dossier and the grounds of detention would throw an impression that petitioner is a hardcore criminal involved in drug peddling on a large scale. However, if grounds of detention are carefully glanced over, it is clear that allegations are vague and cannot form the basis to take him under the preventive detention,” the court stated.
The judicial observation emphasized that the detaining authority had not adequately considered the allegations against the petitioner from the correct legal perspective. The court pointed out that neither the screening committee nor the recommending authority had provided specific details concerning the alleged drug mafia to which Hajam was purportedly a member. Furthermore, the grounds did not specify to whom Hajam had been supplying drugs, nor did they detail the amounts involved. Crucially, the detention order failed to elaborate on how drug trafficking constituted a regular source of his earnings or how he was allegedly influencing young minds into drug consumption. These omissions, according to the court, rendered the allegations insufficient for preventive detention.
The High Court’s ruling firmly established that such generalized and vague allegations are insufficient to justify the imposition of preventive detention. The court reiterated a fundamental principle of the rule of law: executive authorities must conduct themselves in a fair and reasonable manner when making decisions that impact an individual’s personal liberty. “Personal liberty of a citizen cannot be curtailed on vague and dogmatic assertions of the executive,” the court concluded, thereby mandating the immediate release of the detainee, contingent upon his not being implicated in any other pending legal cases.
Tahir Rihat (also known as Tahir Bilal) is an independent journalist, activist, and digital media professional from the Chenab Valley of Jammu and Kashmir, India. He is best known for his work as the Online Editor at The Chenab Times.