Introduction:

In WASEEM AHMAD DAR vs UT OF J&K & ORS (2025), the Jammu and Kashmir High Court examined the legality of a preventive detention order passed against the petitioner, Waseem Ahmad Dar, who had been detained under allegations of engaging in online activity considered prejudicial to the security of the State. The case centred on Facebook posts, videos, photos, and chats allegedly uploaded by the petitioner, which authorities claimed reflected anti-national sentiments capable of disturbing public order and threatening peace. The petitioner challenged the detention order on the ground that it was arbitrary, unsupported by credible material, and violative of constitutional safeguards, especially those under Articles 21 and 22. The respondents—the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and its law-enforcement agencies—argued that the detaining authority acted after evaluating relevant material that reasonably established the need for preventive custody to avert potential threats. Justice Sanjay Dhar, presiding over the matter, extensively reviewed the records, procedural compliance, and principles governing preventive detention, ultimately concluding that the detention order was legally justified, supported by substantive material, and free from procedural infirmities, thus warranting no interference by the Court.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner contended that the detention order suffered from non-application of mind and was issued mechanically without any fresh or credible material indicating that his Facebook activity posed an actual or imminent threat to public order. He argued that the reliance on social media posts amounted to punitive action for past conduct rather than preventive action for future threats, contrary to the established principles of preventive detention. He further submitted that the grounds of detention lacked specificity, transparency, and clarity, depriving him of the constitutional right to make an effective representation. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that the detaining authority merely acted on vague inputs and suspicion, violating statutory requirements under the J&K Public Safety Act and the constitutional mandate under Articles 21 and 22(5). Conversely, the respondents argued that preventive detention is a specialised measure meant to neutralise possible threats to national security and public order, especially in sensitive regions such as Jammu & Kashmir where online radicalisation, propagation of anti-national ideologies, and misuse of digital platforms pose significant risks. They emphasised that the petitioner had uploaded anti-national videos, photos, and chats on his Facebook account, which were accompanied by security reports indicating his active role in spreading content capable of disturbing public peace. The detaining authority, according to the respondents, had thoroughly considered the material placed before it, including the nature of the posts, the potential impact on society, and the petitioner’s likelihood of repeating similar activities if not detained. They asserted that procedural safeguards had been fully complied with—grounds of detention were supplied, representation rights were honoured, and the order followed statutory requirements. The respondents further highlighted that the Court cannot substitute its own judgment for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority unless the decision is arbitrary, mala fide, or unsupported by material—none of which were present in this case.

Court’s Judgment:

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court upheld the preventive detention order, observing that the detaining authority had not acted mechanically or casually but had relied on substantive and specific material demonstrating that the petitioner’s actions posed a plausible threat to public order and State security. Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the Facebook posts and related anti-national content were relevant considerations for forming subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of preventive detention. The Court reiterated the foundational principle that preventive detention is not intended to punish past conduct but to prevent foreseeable threats, and the relevance of past behaviour lies only in its predictive value regarding future activities. It noted that the petitioner’s online activity—characterised by the uploading and sharing of anti-national videos, posts, photos, and chats—was adequate material to reasonably conclude that his conduct was prejudicial to peace and security. Rejecting the petitioner’s argument of arbitrariness, the Court emphasised that subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority cannot be interfered with unless shown to be based on no material, mala fide considerations, or procedural lapses. On examining the record, the Court found that all procedural and constitutional mandates—including the supply of detention grounds and the opportunity to submit a representation—were duly fulfilled. The order was neither vague nor unsupported by evidence; instead, it clearly reflected that the authority had considered multiple sources of inputs and security reports before forming its conclusion. The Bench underlined that in security-related matters, the Court exercises limited jurisdiction and does not act as an appellate authority over administrative satisfaction. With no illegality, procedural irregularity, or constitutional violation established, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the legality and necessity of the preventive detention order.