The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court last week set aside the Public Safety Act detention of a 26-year-old Pulwama man, observing that the mere assertion that he used an encrypted application or VPN, or remained in contact with people allegedly associated with terrorist organisations, was not “an adequate basis for curtailing personal liberty through preventive detention”.Ajaz Ahmad Seh of Pulwama was detained on July 28, 2025, based on a police dossier alleging that he was in contact with Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad handlers through telephone and the encrypted application Zangi, allegedly accessed through a secured VPN.The dossier also accused him of acting as an Over Ground Worker (OGW), providing food, shelter, clothing, transportation and information on security force movements to active terrorists, including Haris Nazir, a resident of Kachipora in Rajpora, Pulwama. He was also accused of motivating local youth to join terrorist ranks. Among the JeM militants he was allegedly in contact with was Aashiq Ahmad Nengroo, declared an individual terrorist by an NIA court in Pulwama in 2024.Also Read | ‘Public order’ vs ‘law and order’: Why Jammu & Kashmir HC scrapped a PSA detention“The allegations, if supported by cogent material, are undoubtedly serious and warrant appropriate action in accordance with law,” Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed in his order on October 30. “However, what assumes significance is that the grounds of detention as placed before this court do not furnish adequate particulars of the alleged communication or activities”.The order noted that there was no clear indication of the specific dates of the alleged communications or the nature and substance of the information purportedly exchanged.“Mere assertion that the detenue used an encrypted application or a VPN, or remained in contact with persons alleged to be associated with terrorist organisations, cannot, without further particulars and relevant supporting material, furnish an adequate basis for curtailing personal liberty through preventive detention,” the court said. “If the investigating agency possessed material indicating that the detenue had used electronic communications to coordinate terrorist activities, transmitted information concerning security forces movements or provided assistance to members of a terrorist organisation, such material could have been examined and acted upon in accordance with the applicable criminal law”.Depending on the facts disclosed by the investigation, provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, or other applicable penal statutes could have been invoked, he observed. “The authorities were not precluded from investigating the alleged activities, collecting electronic and other evidence, and initiating prosecution in accordance with law,” he said.Story continues below this adEmphasising that preventive detention is a precautionary measure and not a substitute for the ordinary criminal process, Justice Nargal observed: “The power of preventive detention, being an extraordinary invasion of personal liberty, must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and only in strict conformity with the constitutional and statutory safeguards governing its exercise. The object of such detention is to prevent a person from engaging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State or other interests specified under the relevant law, and not to punish him for alleged acts already committed.”Justice Nargal also said the manner in which the District Magistrate had formulated the grounds of detention “raises a legitimate concern regarding independent application of mind by the detaining authority’’. A comparison of the police dossier with the grounds of detention, he observed, “indicates substantial reproduction of the allegations put forward by the sponsoring agency”.“The statutory responsibility cannot be discharged by mechanically adopting the narrative supplied by the police,” Justice Nargal observed, ordering the authorities to release the detenue if he was not required in any other case.This is not the first time the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has pulled up a district administration for ordering a person’s detention under the PSA without due application of mind.Story continues below this adOn October 15, Justice Nargal summoned the Srinagar District Magistrate to appear personally before the court to explain why a preventive detention order against Zubair Amin Bangroo had been issued “recklessly and mechanically”.On October 3, Justice Rajnesh Oswal, another judge of the High Court, quashed the PSA detention of Shopian youth Mashooq Ahmad Shah, ruling that the charges of anti-national activities against him were vague and did not specify the individuals or organisations he had allegedly approached.On July 16, Justice Rahul Bharti set aside the preventive detention of a Kupwara youth, describing it as a “Sheer abuse of preventive detention jurisdiction”. The authorities had relied on an FIR in which the youth had already been acquitted in 2016.