Grounds Of Detention Are Vague, Ambiguous: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Of Former Bar President Nazir Ahmad Ronga

Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the allegations against Ronga were vague, lacked material particulars, and did not provide a basis for his detention under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.

The court added,

“.. it is clear that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the grounds of detention are vague, ambiguous and lacking in material particulars, on the basis of which it was not possible for the petitioner to make an effective and suitable representation against the impugned order of detention”

Ronga was detained under Section 8(4) of the J&K Public Safety Act in 2024 vide order issued by the District Magistrate, Srinagar. The order stated that his detention was necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.

Ronga challenged his detention, arguing that there was a complete lack of application of mind by the authorities. He contended that the grounds of detention merely replicated the language of the police dossier without any independent analysis by the detaining authority. Furthermore, he pointed out that a previous detention order against him was revoked in 2019, and since then, no fresh unlawful activities had been attributed to him.

The petitioner also asserted that his alleged association with the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (M) was baseless. He argued his service as a government advocate and as an elected municipal councillor, arguing that he had always condemned terrorism and separatism. He further stated that, as acting Chairman of the Bar Association, he had ensured that amendments were made to its constitution to align it with the Advocates Act.

The Union Territory administration, through Sr AAG, defended the detention, asserting that Ronga had long been associated with separatist activities. It was claimed that he played a pivotal role in uniting 11 secessionist groups under the Tehreek-i-Hurriyat Kashmir banner in 1999 and was involved in organizing protests during the 2008 Amarnath land agitation and the 2010 unrest.

The government further alleged that Ronga was working to revive the High Court Bar Association as a platform for separatists and had held secret meetings to achieve anti-national goals. They also claimed that he had visited jails outside J&K to meet detained separatists and terrorists, allegedly to further the cause of secessionism.

Justice Dhar, after examining the detention record and hearing arguments, found that the grounds for detention were vague and lacked specific details. The Court held that the allegations regarding Ronga's recent activities were general and did not identify specific persons, places, or incidents that could justify preventive detention.

“.. If we minutely examine the alleged activities of the petitioner post his release from preventive detention in the year 2020, if comes to the fore that the detaining authority has not identified the person with whom the petitioner has recently held secret meetings nor has it identified the persons who are likeminded members of the High Court Bar Association with the help of whom the petitioner intends to achieve his anti-national goals”, the court remarked.

The Court noted that while past conduct could be considered for preventive detention, there must be a “live and proximate link” between past activities and present threats to security. It relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana & Ors. (2023) 9 SCC 587, which emphasized that preventive detention must be based on relevant and proximate grounds, not on stale or vague allegations.

Justice Dhar also referred to State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya (AIR 1951 SC 157), stating that grounds of detention must be specific and definite, enabling the detainee to make an effective representation. He further cited the Division Bench rulings in Bilal Ahmad Dar v. UT of J&K (2024) and Showkat Ali v. UT of J&K (2024), which held that preventive detention must not be based on mere conjecture or unverified allegations.

The Court distinguished the case from Mian Abdul Qayoom v. UT of J&K (2020), where there was a chain of intelligence reports linking the detenue's past conduct to present security concerns. In Ronga's case, however, there were no such intelligence reports or material substantiating the allegations of recent anti-national activities, the court maintained.

Given the vague nature of the allegations and the absence of material linking Ronga's alleged past activities to any immediate security threat, the Court found the detention order unsustainable in law.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the detention order and directed the authorities to release Ronga forthwith, provided he was not required in connection with any other case.

Case Title: NA Ronga Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment