IMPORTANT POINT
Preventive detention – Subjective satisfaction, which a Detaining Authority is required to arrived at on the basis of material before it is not subject matter of judicial review.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Kumar, J.—Impugned in this petition is an order of detention bearing No.DMS/PSA/26/2021 dated 24.06.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Srinagar [“the Detaining Authority”], whereby the petitioner has been put under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State.

2. As per the grounds of detention, claimed to have been served by the respondents upon the petitioner, the Detaining Authority received a dossier of the activities of the from Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar vide his No.LGL/Det-3216/20/3041-44 dated 05.03. 2021 with a request to issue a warrant for detention of the petitioner under the provision of Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 [“the Act”]. As per the dossier provided by the Senior Superintendent of Police, the petitioner is shown to have been involved in as many as eight FIRs registered in the year 1996, 1999, 2006, 2007 and 2019 respectively. Five of the referred FIRs have been challenged in the competent Court of law whereas three FIRs are shown to be under investigation. It is alleged that the petitioner after having been booked and arrested in several FIRs did not mend his ways and after release was found continuously hatching criminal conspiracy aimed at threatening the security of the State. It is claimed in the grounds of detention that the ideology which the petitioner follows and preaches is for waging war against the Government of Jammu & Kashmir and the Central Government with a view to achieve goal of seceding the territory of Jammu & Kashmir from Union of India. It is on the basis of cumulative effect of the activities of the petitioner, the Detaining Authority seems to have arrived at subjective satisfaction that remaining of the petitioner at large would be highly prejudicial to the security of the State. It is on the basis of these grounds, the Detaining Authority has put the petitioner under preventive detention by invoking the provisions of Section 8 of the Act.

3. The respondents despite having been given several opportunities have failed to file reply affidavit and, therefore, the grounds of challenge urged by the petitioner for quashing the detention order were examined in the light of detention record produced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. From a perusal of the record it emerges that the impugned order of detention has been passed by the Detaining Authority relying completely on the dossier provided by the Senior Superintendent of Police. As per the dossier, the petitioner has been shown to be involved in eight different FIRs registered over a period of time. The earliest FIR against the petitioner which is pending trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar was registered in the year 1996 and the latest one, which is under investigation, was registered in the Police Station Soura in the year 2019. Out of eight FIRs, five are pending trial before different criminal Courts whereas three FIRs are still under investigation. In FIR Nos. 70/2007 and 73/2019 registered in Police Stations, Safakadal and Soura respectively, the petitioner is also involved in the commission of offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. From the record, I could also find that at the time of execution of warrant of detention the petitioner was provided the order of detention, grounds of detentions and copies of the FIRs relied upon in the grounds of detention. It also comes out from the record that the grounds of detention were read over and explained to the petitioner in the language he fully understood. He was also apprised of his right to make representation to the Government against his detention, if he so desires. Earlier, the Detaining Authority also gave him an option to make representation to it till the impugned order of detention was approved by the Government. It is, thus, clearly borne out from the record that not only the material rel