Srinagar: The Deputy Commissioner Srinagar personally appeared before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court today, October 22, after a single bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal last week passed an order seeking an explanation over what he had prima facie described as a detention order under Public Safety Act (PSA) passed “recklessly and mechanically”, without due application of mind.The court in its previous order on October 15 had asked the Srinagar DC to appear before the court. While hearing the case, Justice Nargal questioned how the detaining authority could refer to “aforementioned terrorists” when no such individuals had been identified in the preceding portion of the grounds of detention.According to petitioner Zubair Amin Bagroo’s counsel Nida Nazir, the DC submitted before the court that the names were available in the police dossier. The single bench, however, questioned why the identities had not been specifically mentioned in the grounds of detention themselves, which provides the basis of the detention to the person concerned.The argument followed the court’s earlier order in which it had raised the concerns that whether the detaining authority independently verified the material before it or relied on the police dossier without adequately incorporating and assessing its relevant details.Nida who has been handling the case for last 10 months told The Wire that the court also questioned the timing of the charges against Bangroo, asking why no allegations had been raised against him since 2024 and why the matter had come up in 2026.She confirmed that further arguments in the case will continue next Thursday, October 29.In its October 15 order, a single-judge bench of Justice Nargal had directed the DC to appear and explain how the order had been formulated. The order of the impugned detention was passed by him. The court also sought the full and original record of the case, including the police dossier, the material placed before the detaining authority, and documents showing how that material was considered before the decision to detain Bangroo was taken.Bangroo was detained on the charges of maintaining links with “terrorist elements,” and allegations of providing them with logistical and moral support. His dossier also mentioned that he had apparently allowed his residential premises and other locations to be used as hideouts, and attempted to reconnect with members of a terror network operating outside the Union Territory.All of these allegations have challenged by Bangroo. His counsel argued that the grounds of detention were vague and lacked specific particulars necessary for an effective challenge.“Personal liberty occupies a position of paramount importance in the constitutional scheme. Its deprivation, even for a single day, constitutes an injury which cannot subsequently be undone by the mere restoration of liberty,” Justice Nargal had said in the October 15 hearing.According to Bangroo’s counsel, the detention grounds did not adequately identify the individuals allegedly associated with Bangroo, the locations purportedly used as hideouts or the specific incidents in which he was accused of providing support. The plea also questioned the absence of an FIR against him, though the absence of a criminal case alone does not automatically invalidate preventive detention.It is pertinent to mention that in its earlier order, the high court had also specifically flagged the reference to “aforementioned terrorists” in the second paragraph of the detention grounds. The preceding paragraph, the court observed, did not identify any terrorist. Instead, it contained a formal assertion by the detaining authority that it had applied its mind to the case.The court said this unexplained reference raised serious doubt about whether the relevant portion of the detention grounds had been mechanically reproduced from the police dossier without independent scrutiny. The court had also noted similarities with another habeas corpus petition, HCP No. 321/2025, involving a separate detention order issued by the District Magistrate at Srinagar. That case had raised similar prima facie concerns over the apparent reproduction of police material without clear evidence of independent consideration.Justice Nargal had emphasised that preventive detention, because it permits the deprivation of liberty without an ordinary criminal trial, must be exercised with exceptional caution and strict adherence to constitutional safeguards. “A police dossier may constitute the basis for consideration by the competent authority; however, it cannot, by itself, dispense with the indispensable requirement that the detaining authority must independently examine the material, assess its relevance and arrive at its own subjective satisfaction in accordance with law,” the court said.The judge referred to the Articles 21 and 22 of the constitution, along with Supreme Court judgments emphasising the need for strict scrutiny of preventive detention orders and the protection of personal liberty stressing on the obligation on the detaining authority to act with constitutional responsibility and procedural diligence.The court clarified that the seriousness of allegations cannot substitute for specific supporting material, and that the authority issuing a detention order must demonstrate that it has independently applied its mind to the facts of the case.The high court has not yet ruled on the legality of Bangroo’s detention.