1. The petitioner has challenged the detention of detenue, namely, Ghulam Hassan Hajam son of Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Hajam resident of Watergam, Wagoora, by the respondent indicated in the grounds supplied which only are pressed due to legal defect for relief to set-aside the detention for want of supply of detention order to the detenue and the grounds of detention have not been served to him in the language he understands (Kashmiri) which renders the detention order illegal and unconstitutional.

2. It appears that on arrest of the detenue, the petitioner moved Habeas Corpus petition before this court for a direction to furnish grounds of detention to the detenue and consequent to the direction by the court, grounds of detention have been issued to him on the basis of which the detention has been challenged on two counts only indicated in this petition. The allegation against the detenue in the grounds is that he is an activist of JKLF, a banned organization, with its aim to disturb peace and tranquility, to kill the eminent persons, high-ups of C.RP.F. ; BSF, Judges and High Court Judges and to use sophisticated weapons; to distribute objectionable material to the public. The detenue having been arrested with other associates while attempting to cross to other side of POK to fulfill his illegal and evil designs, therefore, he has been detained under the provisions of PSA by the respondent, as his activities are highly prejudicial to the security of the State, the grounds indicating that detention order will follow separately.

3. On admission of the petition, respondents were called upon to file counter which they failed despite repeated opportunities given, even last and final opportunity to the respondents to file the counter vide order dated 18-7-1991, resulting the closure of the counter.

4. Arguments of the LC for the petitioner and Mr. Mansotra, GA, appearing for the State, have been heard.

5. As observed, learned counsel for the petitioner pressed into service only two grounds for setting-aside the detention and release of the detenue; firstly, that order of detention has not been served to the detenue, revealed by last para of the grounds that order will follow separately; secondly, the grounds of detention have been served in English, to the detenue and not explained in the language (Kashmiri) understood by him.

6. The respondent has failed to counter the allegations for non-filing of the counter, therefore, the allegations regarding non-supply of order of detention and explaining the grounds of detention in Kashmiri, the language understood by the detenue have remained un rebutted, rather intact.

7. As regards the order of detention, it is a material document, indicating the date of detention, period and the authority making such order together with provision of detention law. The detention order is missing in the case in hand which is a vital and primary document, the detenue can represent against before the Advisory Board or challenge before the court. The fact of with-holding the detention order is crystal clear and confirmed from the last sentence of the grounds of detention in these words :-

The detention order will follow separately

Once the main pillar i.e. the detention order, which binds the detenue for detention is not available to the court to appreciate and to the detenue to proceed against the same before the Board or the Court, the detention of detenue is like an attempt to kill the enemy by a gun, but short of bullet. Therefore, grounds as well as order of detention to detain a person are to be furnished, being inter-dependent and one cannot be separated from other, leaving the action ineffective under the provisions of law.

8. I, therefore, hold that without furnishing the order of detention, the spirit of Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution of India is not fulfilled and non-supply of order of detention to the detenue is a material act rendering the detention of a citizen illegal. This is the repeated view o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document