Notably, one of the grounds on which Malik had challenged the detention order was that there was no application of mind by the detaining authority.
His counsel pointed out that the detaining authority had accused Malik of carrying out activities prejudicial to the security of “the State”, rather than the “Union Territory” of Jammu and Kashmir.
The lawyer contended that after the introduction of the Jammu and Kashmir Re-Organisation Act of 2019 (which followed the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution), Jammu and Kashmir was no longer a State and was converted into two Union Territories (Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh).
The argument, however, failed to impress the High Court which held that the term “State”, in this context, would include Union Territories, going by the definition of “State” in the General Clauses Act, 1897.
Source: Barandbench
