{"id":398481,"date":"2026-10-12T11:00:21","date_gmt":"2026-10-12T05:30:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=398481"},"modified":"2026-10-12T10:15:50","modified_gmt":"2026-10-12T04:45:50","slug":"jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/12\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\/","title":{"rendered":"Four FIRS arising from personal enmity do not establish threat to public order; J&K and Ladakh HC quashes PSA detention"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Disclaimer:<\/span> This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.<\/span><\/p>\n

Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court:<\/span> In a petition challenging the preventive detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Poonch under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978<\/a> (PSA)<\/span> against the detenue with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, a Single Bench Sanjay Dhar, J.<\/span>, set aside the detention order holding that the incidents underlying the petitioner’s criminal antecedents were individualistic in nature and lacked the potential to disturb public order.<\/span> The Court distinguished between the incidents pertaining to be threat to “public order” and “law and order”, and held that before issuing any detention order, it is incumbent upon the authorities to carefully assail whether the incidents are either threat to “public order” or “law and order”. Accordingly, the Court held that the detention order was unsustainable in law and directed the release of the detenue.<\/span><\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

The petitioner challenged the detention order issued by the magistrate on the grounds that the allegations made within the order did not amount to any situation that would endanger the “public order”. The activities in which the petitioner was allegedly found to be involved could, at best be a problem of “law and order”, and it was not open for the authorities to pass the detaining order for such activities.<\/p>\n

The petitioner further contended that the magistrate did not apply his own application of mind while issuing the impugned order of detention, in as much as the grounds of detention were identical to the averments made in the dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Poonch. Additionally, the petitioner contended that he was not also provided with the translated version of the material relied upon by the detaining authority, as a result of which he was unable to make effective representation against the impugned order of detention.<\/p>\n

Per Contra, the respondent contended that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to undertake a judicial review of the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority, and it was not open to this Court to go into the sufficiency or otherwise of the material on the basis of which the order of detention was passed.<\/p>\n

The respondent submitted that keeping in view the prejudicial activities of the petitioner, the preventive detention order was issued against him so as to deter him from acting or indulging in prejudicial activities. The respondent submitted that all the constitutional and statutory safeguards were adhere by the detaining authority while passing and executing the impugned order. Accordingly, the detention order was passed after taking due consideration of the continuing prejudicial activities of the detenue.<\/p>\n

It was alleged that the petitioner was supplied with all the material based on which the grounds of detention were framed, giving him appropriate time to make his representation.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/p>\n

The Court relied on Ameena Begum<\/span> v. the State of Telangana and others<\/span>, (2023) 9 SCC 587<\/a>, wherein the Supreme Court explained the scope of judicial review of preventive detention orders, holding that constitutional courts may examine whether the detaining authority misconceived its powers, applied its mind to the relevant circumstances and exercised its discretion with rationality and prudence, without delving into the sufficiency of the material underlying its subjective satisfaction. Applying these principles, the<\/span> Court held that while considering the legality of an order of preventive detention, it has the jurisdiction to make an inquiry into the authority’s decision to issue preventive detention order, in order to test the legality of such discretion exercised, to check whether the detaining authority exercised some degree of rationality and prudence before issuing the order. And, if upon perusing the grounds of detention, it appears to the Court that the detaining authority has acted beyond is power, it would interfere with the order.<\/p>\n

The Court notedd that the principal contention raised by the petitioner was that the authorities erred in assailing his previous criminal antecedents with the threat to public order. In order to test whether the incidents assailed by the authorities concerns the “law and order” or not, the Court drew distinction between “public order” and “law and order”.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the activities amounting to disturbance of “public order” give power to a detaining authority under the provisions of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978<\/a> to pass an order of preventive detention, and the activities which merely pose a threat to “law and order” cannot form the bases for passing an order of preventive detention.<\/p>\n

The Court relied on Ram Manohar Lohia<\/span> v. State of Bihar<\/span>, 1965 SCC OnLine SC 9<\/a> and Kuso Sah v. State of Bihar<\/span>, (1974) 1 SCC 185<\/a> to explain the difference between “law and order” and “public order” to conclude that any offending acts relating to the disturbance of flow of life of the community, amounts to an act prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, therefore demanding requisite steps from the authorities to prevent the same through preventive detention, however, if the offending acts are merely directed against an individual without disturbing the public, such case of disturbance of “law and order” does not warrant no action under the preventive detention laws.<\/p>\n

Turning to the facts of the case<\/span>, the Court held that the incidents pertaining to the four FIRs has to be noticed to ascertain whether the said incidents would fall within the category of danger to “public order” or would merely be categorized as incidents of “law and order” problem.<\/p>\n

After individually perusing the particulars of the incidents, which formed the basis of the four FIRs registered against the petitioner, the Court noted that all the incidents were confined to personal enmity between the petitioner and the complainant party, therefore, all the incidents were individualistic in nature. And repetition of similar acts by the petitioner would not, by itself, affect the flow of life of the community. Merely because the detenue has been charged with multiple offences cannot, in isolation, be taken as a basis for passing an order of detention, since these incidents were private in nature and did not have the potential to disturb the public order.<\/p>\n

The Court further observed that these incidents, in the words attributed to Justice Rahul Bharti, were a “pain in the neck” for the authorities responsible for maintaining law and order, but did not disturb the flow of public life.<\/p>\n

“These incidents, at best, in the inimitable words of Justice Rahul Bharti, are a “pain in the neck” for the authorities responsible for maintaining “law and order”, and do not disturb the flow of public”<\/p>\n

The Court held that preventive detention, being an extraordinary power, could not be invoked where ordinary criminal law provided sufficient means to address the alleged offences. It also noted that the respondents had already sought cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner in connection with one of the FIRs, but the detention order had been passed without awaiting the conclusion of those proceedings.<\/p>\n

Finding that the detaining authority had failed to appreciate the distinction between public order and law and order, the Court held that the impugned detention order was unsustainable in law. Accordingly, it quashed the detention order dated 27 April 2026 and<\/span> directed the release of the detenue forthwith, if not involved in any other case.<\/p>\n

[Mohd. Yousuf v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, HCP No. 44\/2026, decided on 18-09-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Petitioner:<\/span> C.M.Koul, A.R.Bhat, Adv<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> Dewakar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court set aside a preventive detention order holding that the petitioner’s alleged criminal antecedents, arising from incidents confined to personal enmity, did not pose a threat to public order. It reiterated that preventive detention cannot be invoked merely because a person is accused in multiple criminal cases, particularly where the alleged acts concern individual disputes and do not disturb the normal flow of community life.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":398482,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[9841,32251,37965,72683,19721,56266,3117,61171,17941],"class_list":["post-398481","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-criminal-antecedents","tag-jk-public-safety-act","tag-jammu-and-kashmir-high-court","tag-justice-sanjay-dhar","tag-law-and-order","tag-personal-enmity","tag-Preventive_Detention","tag-preventive-detention-order","tag-public-order"],"yoast_head":"\nJ&K HC quashes PSA detention over 4 FIRs arising from personal enmity | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"J&K and Ladakh HC quashes PSA detention, holding that four FIRs arising from personal enmity did not establish a threat to public order.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/12\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Four FIRS arising from personal enmity do not establish threat to public order; J&K and Ladakh HC quashes PSA detention\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"J&K and Ladakh HC quashes PSA detention, holding that four FIRs arising from personal enmity did not establish a threat to public order.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/12\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-10-12T05:30:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/JK-High-Court-PSA-Detention.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/12\\\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/12\\\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Editor\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"headline\":\"Four FIRS arising from personal enmity do not establish threat to public order; J&K and Ladakh HC quashes PSA detention\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-10-12T05:30:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/12\\\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1296,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/12\\\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/JK-High-Court-PSA-Detention.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"criminal antecedents\",\"J&K Public Safety Act\",\"Jammu and Kashmir High Court\",\"Justice Sanjay Dhar\",\"law and order\",\"personal enmity\",\"Preventive Detention\",\"preventive detention order\",\"public order\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/12\\\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/12\\\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/12\\\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\\\/\",\"name\":\"J&K HC quashes PSA detention over 4 FIRs arising from personal enmity | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/12\\\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/12\\\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/JK-High-Court-PSA-Detention.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-10-12T05:30:21+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"J&K and Ladakh HC quashes PSA detention, holding that four FIRs arising from personal enmity did not establish a threat to public order.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/12\\\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/12\\\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/12\\\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/JK-High-Court-PSA-Detention.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/JK-High-Court-PSA-Detention.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"J&K High Court PSA Detention\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/12\\\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Four FIRS arising from personal enmity do not establish threat to public order; J&K and Ladakh HC quashes PSA detention\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_4\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"J&K HC quashes PSA detention over 4 FIRs arising from personal enmity | SCC Times","description":"J&K and Ladakh HC quashes PSA detention, holding that four FIRs arising from personal enmity did not establish a threat to public order.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/12\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Four FIRS arising from personal enmity do not establish threat to public order; J&K and Ladakh HC quashes PSA detention","og_description":"J&K and Ladakh HC quashes PSA detention, holding that four FIRs arising from personal enmity did not establish a threat to public order.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/12\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-10-12T05:30:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/JK-High-Court-PSA-Detention.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/12\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/12\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\/"},"author":{"name":"Editor","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"headline":"Four FIRS arising from personal enmity do not establish threat to public order; J&K and Ladakh HC quashes PSA detention","datePublished":"2026-10-12T05:30:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/12\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\/"},"wordCount":1296,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/12\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/JK-High-Court-PSA-Detention.webp","keywords":["criminal antecedents","J&K Public Safety Act","Jammu and Kashmir High Court","Justice Sanjay Dhar","law and order","personal enmity","Preventive Detention","preventive detention order","public order"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/12\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/12\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/12\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\/","name":"J&K HC quashes PSA detention over 4 FIRs arising from personal enmity | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/12\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/12\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/JK-High-Court-PSA-Detention.webp","datePublished":"2026-10-12T05:30:21+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"J&K and Ladakh HC quashes PSA detention, holding that four FIRs arising from personal enmity did not establish a threat to public order.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/12\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/12\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/12\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/JK-High-Court-PSA-Detention.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/JK-High-Court-PSA-Detention.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"J&K High Court PSA Detention"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/12\/jk-ladakh-hc-quashes-psa-detention-four-firs-personal-enmity\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Four FIRS arising from personal enmity do not establish threat to public order; J&K and Ladakh HC quashes PSA detention"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/JK-High-Court-PSA-Detention.webp","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/398481","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=398481"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/398481\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":398485,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/398481\/revisions\/398485"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/398482"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=398481"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=398481"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=398481"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}