The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed the appeal of Shaista Maqbool, alias “Choti Behan”, upholding her detention under the Public Safety Act (PSA) for her alleged links with the banned terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and its slain commander Musaib Lakhvi.
According to the authorities, Shaista, a resident of Bandipora, was in close contact with the active LeT commander between 2016 and 2018, with their association often described as a “love affair” in local circles. Security agencies alleged that following Lakhvi’s death, she established contact with Pakistan-based handlers Abu Zehran and Abu Hans through encrypted communication channels.
Investigators claimed Shaista operated multiple pseudonyms within terror networks, including “Choti Behan” and “Choti”, and used a Facebook account under the ID “Lakhvi Musaib” to communicate with terrorists across the Line of Control (LoC). She allegedly provided logistical and intelligence support to LeT operatives in North Kashmir, including sensitive information about the movement of political leaders and protected persons.
The High Court bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal rejected her appeal, observing that her detention was based on “specific, non-vague grounds.” The court ruled that ordinary criminal law was insufficient to counter her “covert and anti-national activities,” thereby validating the use of preventive detention.
Citing Supreme Court precedents, the bench held that judicial review could not override the “subjective satisfaction” of the detaining authority unless the order lacked proper consideration, something the court found absent in this case.
The judges confirmed that due process was followed, noting that Shaista received all 30 pages of detention-related material, was given a personal hearing before the Advisory Board, and that her representation was duly considered and rejected.
Authorities further claimed that Shaista was taking direct instructions from handlers across the border to aid terrorist activities, including facilitating operations and assisting in targeted killings.
The bench concluded that there existed a “live and proximate link” between her actions and the grounds for detention, making her continued custody under the Public Safety Act legally justified.
