Judgment

SHINGHAL J.:- This petition of Mohammad Yousuf Rather under Article 32 of the Constitution challenges his detention under S. 8 (a) (i) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The order of detention has been made by the District Magistrate of Anantnag on April 12, 1979, and it is not in controversy that it has really been made under sub-sec. (2) of S. 8 of the Act on the basis of the satisfaction provided for in sub-clause (1) of clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of that section. While the petitioner has stated that he did not receive the order of detention, and only the grounds of detention were communicated to him, his learned counsel Mr. Ramamurthi has not raised any controversy on that account. He has in fact given up several other points on which the writ petition has been filed, and has contented himself by putting his arguments in two ways. Firstly, he has argued that some of the grounds are so vague that the petitioner has not found it possible to exercise his fundamental right of making a representation under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution. Secondly, he has argued that some of the grounds are irrelevant for the purpose of making of an order under S. 8 of the Act. We shall therefore confine ourselves to a consideration of these two points of controversy.

2. The grounds of detention have admittedly been sent to the petitioner by way of an annexure to the District Magistrates order No. 49-54/ST dated April 12, 1979. It has been stated therein that the detention has been ordered on "the grounds specified in the Annexure .......... which also contains facts relevant thereto," and the petitioner has been informed that he may make a representation to the Government against the order of detention if he so desires. We shall refer to the annexure in a while, but it may be stated here that the counsel for the respondents has not found it possible to contend that no part thereof is vague. He has however tried to argue that the annexure contains a preamble as well as the grounds of detention, and that the vagueness of the preamble could not possibly justify the argument that the grounds of detention are also vague. Learned counsel has tried to support his argument by reference to the decision of this Court in Naresh Chandra Ganguli v. State of West Bengal (1960) 1 SCR 411. The annexure reads as follows:-

"You are a die-hard Naxalite and you are notorious for you activities which are proving prejudical to the maintenance of public order. You are in the habit of organising meetings, secret as well as public in which you instigate the people to create lawlessness which spreads panic in the minds of common people. You are also reported to be in the habit of going from one village to the other, with intent to compel the shopkeepers to close down their shops and participate in the meetings. You are reported to have recently started a compaign in villages, asking the inhabitants not to sell their extra paddy crop to the Government and in case they are compelled to do so, they should manhandle the Government officials deputed for the purpose of purchasing shali on voluntary basis from the villagers.

On 9-2-1979 you, after compelling the shopkeepers to close down their shops, organised a meeting at Chowalgam and asked the participants to lodge protests against the treatment meted out to Shri Z. A. Bhutto, late Prime Minister of Pakistan by General Zia-Ul-Haq, in fact, you did not have any sympathy for the late Prime Minister, but you did it with one intent to exploit the situation and create lawlessness.

On 23-3-1979 you presided over a meeting at Kulgam and delivered a speech. Among other things, you passed derogatory remarks against Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah, the Chief Minister of the State and compared him with General Zia of Pakistan, said that he (the Chief Minister) also wants to become a dictator. You further stated that the Mullas of Kashmir are preparing for distribution of sweets on the day