DODA, JAMMU AND KASHMIR — In a significant turn of events that has sparked a political storm in Jammu and Kashmir, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Mehraj Din Malik has been detained under the Public Safety Act (PSA) by Doda Police. Malik, a sitting legislator from Doda East constituency, was taken into custody on Monday just as he was reportedly preparing to visit flood-affected areas in his constituency. The move has not only triggered a sharp reaction from opposition leaders and civil society but also led to scrutiny over the role of the J&K Legislative Assembly Secretariat in the matter.
MLA Detained Amid Political Unrest
Mehraj Malik was detained at Dak Bungalow Doda, a government rest house, and subsequently shifted to Bhaderwah District Jail after a PSA dossier was prepared against him by the local police. Video footage circulating on social media platforms showed Malik attempting to leave for flood relief duties when he was intercepted by authorities. According to police officials, the MLA’s “activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”, necessitating his detention under the preventive provisions of the PSA.
The development has led to political outrage, with multiple parties except the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) condemning the arrest. Questions were immediately raised about the timing and legality of the action, especially in light of Malik’s status as an elected representative.
Assembly Secretariat Issues Clarification
Given Malik’s position as a sitting MLA, District Magistrate (DM) Doda Harvinder Singh followed protocol by informing the Speaker of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly. In line with Rule 260 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, the Speaker’s office then circulated the intimation to all members of the House through an official bulletin.
However, the bulletin’s publication triggered criticism on social media and from political quarters, accusing the Assembly Secretariat of endorsing the PSA against Malik. The Secretariat responded swiftly, issuing a formal communique to clarify that its role was purely procedural.
“The Secretariat has no authority to endorse or oppose executive or judicial decisions,” the communique stated, adding that the bulletin was issued only to inform legislators as per Rule 260.
This rule mandates the Speaker to publish in the official bulletin any arrest, detention, or release of a member, either in session or when the House is not sitting. The Secretariat emphasized that no approval or consent from the Speaker is required for a preventive detention under PSA or any criminal proceeding.
What Led to Malik’s Arrest?
The roots of Malik’s detention appear to stem from a political standoff with the District Administration, particularly involving DM Doda Harvinder Singh. As per official sources, government employees held a protest at the district headquarters, supporting the DC and condemning Malik for allegedly making abusive remarks against the officer on social media.
Malik had earlier accused the DC of “engineering protests” and “stifling democratic voices”, suggesting that his criticisms were being “given a communal colour”. In a video posted shortly before his arrest, he warned of a public backlash, accusing the administration of suppressing dissent.
Adding fuel to the fire, Sikh organisations in Jammu issued strong condemnations of the remarks allegedly made by Malik against the DC, who is a senior IAS officer known for his administrative integrity. These organisations demanded stringent action against the MLA, calling his words “uncouth and unacceptable.”
Additionally, Doda Police had earlier filed FIR No. 90/2025 against Malik and five others under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The complaint, lodged by the Block Medical Officer (BMO) Thathri, involved allegations of theft of hospital equipment and obstruction of public servants during the relocation of a health centre.
Does the Speaker’s Consent Matter?
The legal debate intensified over whether the Speaker’s permission was required for Malik’s arrest. According to Rule 258 of the Assembly’s Rules, no prior sanction from the Speaker is necessary for preventive detention or criminal arrest of a member. The arresting authority must simply inform the Speaker promptly with the relevant details.
Rule 258 reads: “When a member is arrested on a criminal charge… or is detained under an executive order, the committing judge, magistrate or executive authority shall immediately intimate such fact to the Speaker.”
However, Rules 261 and 262 protect members from civil proceedings or arrests within the Assembly premises during a session, ensuring that legislative business is not disrupted.
Thus, while the procedural framework was followed in Malik’s case, the political narrative surrounding it remains deeply contested.
Assembly Bulletin and PSA Charges
In the official bulletin, the Legislative Assembly Secretariat quoted verbatim from the intimation sent by DM Doda:
“That Mehraj Din Malik, Member of Legislative Assembly (Constituency Doda-52), has been booked under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, on grounds of his activities being prejudicial to the maintenance of public order… Preventive detention under the PSA was, therefore, found necessary in the interest of maintaining public order and safeguarding law and order in the region.”
DM Doda submitted that the arrest was necessitated by Malik’s actions, which, based on collected reports and materials, were deemed to pose a grave threat to peace and public order.
Reactions Across Political Spectrum
The arrest has united opposition voices in criticism, many calling it an act of political vendetta and an attempt to silence dissent. AAP supporters staged protests at various locations in the Doda region, demanding Malik’s immediate release.
Conversely, BJP leaders and government officials have remained largely silent or supported the administration’s decision, stating that “no one is above the law.”
Some political analysts view the situation as an escalation of tensions between elected representatives and bureaucratic officials in the UT. Others are interpreting it as a test case for democratic accountability in the region, especially with the upcoming local body elections in sight.
Legal Community Reacts
Legal experts have raised concerns over the frequent use of the Public Safety Act, which allows for detention without trial for up to three to six months. Although the law has been a part of J&K’s security framework for decades, its application against a sitting legislator has added a new dimension to the debate.
Senior advocates pointed out that the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of due process, even in cases of preventive detention. They warned that misuse of the PSA can erode public trust in democratic institutions.
PSA in Jammu and Kashmir: A Brief Background
The Public Safety Act, 1978, is a preventive detention law applicable exclusively in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Initially aimed at curbing timber smuggling, it has since been widely used in cases of militancy, public unrest, and law and order issues.
The law allows for detention without trial for up to 6 months, extendable to 2 years in certain cases. Critics have long argued that its ambiguous provisions and lack of judicial oversight make it vulnerable to political misuse.
Human rights groups have consistently called for its repeal or amendment, citing numerous instances of arbitrary detention. However, the law continues to be in effect, especially after the abrogation of Article 370.
Public Sentiment and On-Ground Developments
On the ground, reactions to Malik’s arrest remain polarized. In Doda, supporters of the MLA decried the action as undemocratic, while others backed the administration for taking what they deemed a lawful step to ensure order.
The incident has also raised concerns about freedom of speech and the growing gap between civil administration and elected representatives in the UT. Political observers suggest that the confrontation may further deepen distrust in the governance framework unless addressed through institutional dialogue and legal scrutiny.
The detention of Mehraj Malik under the Public Safety Act has thrown light on the complex intersection of law, politics, and governance in Jammu and Kashmir. While the authorities maintain that the arrest followed legal procedure and was necessitated by security concerns, opposition parties and civil rights advocates view it as an example of executive overreach and political suppression. As the matter unfolds, it is likely to resonate in the political discourse of the UT for months to come, setting a precedent on the limits of administrative power vis-à-vis elected representatives.
