The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has struck down the preventive detention of Mehraj Malik, delivering a significant legal victory to the Aam Aadmi Party leader who had been held under the controversial Public Safety Act (PSA) since September 2025.
In its ruling on Monday, the court set aside the detention order after finding that the grounds cited by authorities did not meet the threshold required for such stringent action. The judgment came in response to a habeas corpus petition filed shortly after Malik’s arrest, with hearings spanning several months before the bench reserved its verdict in February this year.
With the order now quashed, Malik is likely to be released once procedural formalities are completed, unless he is wanted in any other case.
Malik’s detention had drawn widespread attention, marking a rare instance of a sitting legislator being booked under the PSA, a law that permits detention without formal charges for up to two years. The order had been issued by the Doda District Magistrate, who accused the MLA of posing a threat to public order, citing multiple cases and complaints registered against him over the past decade.
The episode followed a public confrontation between Malik and Doda Deputy Commissioner Harvinder Singh in early September, which circulated widely on social media. The dispute reportedly involved concerns over flood relief distribution, wage delays, and the relocation of a health facility in Kencha village. In the aftermath, government employees protested in support of the district administration, alleging interference by the legislator.
Malik was subsequently detained while traveling to flood-affected areas and was initially lodged in Bhaderwah before being shifted to Kathua.
The arrest triggered criticism from across political lines. Leaders from parties including the National Conference, Congress, PDP, and AAP questioned the use of the PSA in this case. Arvind Kejriwal and Omar Abdullah were among those who described the detention as politically motivated.
Responding to the court’s decision, Omar Abdullah reiterated his stance, calling the detention “a gross misuse of law” and asserting that it should never have happened. He expressed hope that the ruling would prompt greater accountability and reflection on the use of preventive detention laws in the region.
Throughout his incarceration, Malik maintained that the allegations against him were exaggerated and driven by political considerations. His legal counsel argued that the detention lacked sufficient basis and violated constitutional safeguards—arguments that ultimately found favor with the court.
