The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed the preventive detention of a 66-year-old farmer under the Public Safety Act (PSA), describing the police dossier against him as a “very fairy story like representation” without factual substance. The court found that the dossier cited no criminal case against him and appeared to contain allegations relating to another person.Justice Rahul Bharti ordered the immediate release of the farmer, Romelu Ram, on October 7. The court was hearing a petition filed by Ram through his son, Jagjit Singh, challenging a detention order issued by the Kathua district magistrate on April 4 this year under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The man was detained on April 6.“A bare perusal of the dossier would show that the petitioner has been branded as a terrorist without even a single case of ordinary criminal nature having been ever registered against him by any of the Police Stations in district Kathua or for that matter at any other place in the entire UT of Jammu & Kashmir…The dossier is making a very fairy story like representation of and against the petitioner without any factual content whatsoever,” the court said on October 7, examining the material used to justify his detention.Alleged links with terrorist organisationsThe senior superintendent of police (SSP), Kathua, submitted a dossier to the district magistrate on March 12 alleging that Ram was involved in anti-national activities and sympathised with banned terrorist organisations.The dossier accused him of providing militants with transportation, internet access, food and shelter. It also alleged that he shared information about the movement of security forces, frustrating cordon-and-search operations. The police described Ram as a history-sheeter at Billawar Police Station and as an overground worker of a terrorist organisation. Justice Rahul Bharti observed that there appeared to be malice on the part of the district police in booking the man under PSA without an adequate basis.However, the high court noted that the dossier did not identify the specific terrorist organisation Ram was allegedly associated with. It also found that not a single ordinary criminal case had been cited against him in Kathua district or elsewhere in Jammu and Kashmir.Questioning the basis for describing him as a history-sheeter, the court noted that the dossier did not identify any order declaring him one or cite a criminal case supporting the claim.Story continues below this adAlso Read | Internet fundamental right, blanket curbs on children no answer: Supreme CourtJustice Bharti observed that the material appeared to have been copied from a dossier relating to another person allegedly linked to terrorist organisations. “It appears that the respondent No. 3 – Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Kathua has cut paste the contents of the dossier relatable to some other person,” the court said.Court questions material citedThe high court examined two proceedings initiated against Ram under Section 129 (security for good behaviour from habitual offenders) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, dated February 23 and March 5.It noted that the dossier did not establish whether these proceedings had concluded through a final order under BNSS Section 136 (order to give security) by the Executive Magistrate First Class, Billawar.The remaining material comprised two daily diary reports dated February 10 and March 10 from Billawar and Malhar police stations, respectively. The court characterised these entries as hearsay inputs and questioned whether they could support the serious allegations against Ram.Story continues below this adRam was taken into custody on April 6 and lodged in the Jammu District Jail. The government approved his detention on April 15. The Advisory Board submitted its opinion on April 21, finding the detention justified. On April 30, the government confirmed it for an initial six-month period, from April 6 to October 5. Following this, Ram challenged the detention before the high court on May 22.‘Confused public order with state security’The court found a separate legal error in the grounds of detention prepared by the district magistrate. Justice Bharti noted that the magistrate had reproduced provisions of Section 8(3)(b) of the Public Safety Act concerning activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order but presented them as relating to threats to the security of the state.“…District Magistrate, Kathua is caught on wrong foot in terms of his very elementary understanding of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 by co-relating something which is dealing with the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and referring it to as the activities prejudicial to the security of the State and acting on the sheer misunderstanding and misconception of law…the District Magistrate, Kathua has examined the fate of the petitioner’s personal liberty,” it stated.The high court also criticised the Advisory Board for overlooking the discrepancy and proceeding mechanically.Story continues below this adThe district magistrate defended the detention in a counter-affidavit filed on July 22. However, the high court concluded that the deficiencies in the police dossier and the legal error in the detention grounds rendered the exercise unlawful.Also Read | ‘Poor oversight, faulty furniture’ delay home renovation, Gurgaon couple wins Rs 80,000The court observed that there appeared to be malice on the part of the district police in booking Ram under the PSA without an adequate basis.Holding the detention illegal and the proceedings vitiated by malice in law, the court quashed the April 4 detention order along with the government’s approval, confirmation and extension orders, if any. It directed Ram’s immediate release from the district jail and ordered the jail superintendent to comply.