1. Tariq Ahmad Gogja has been detained for a period of twelve months in terms of Section 8 of J&K Public Safety Act under orders of April 22, 1998 of District Magistrate Srinagar-respondent No. 2. This order is impugned in this petition by the petitioner through his father.

2. Detenue is alleged to have been arrested on 27.2.1998 and thereafter taken in preventive detention as above. It is alleged that the provisions of Public Safety Act regarding reference of this detention case to Advisory Board and producing the detenue before the Advisory Board have been violated. The detenue has been detained on vague, indefinite and omnibus allegations. The order suffers from non-application of mind and lacks in subjective satisfaction. The detenue has not been served with order of detention nor the material referred in the grounds has been supplied to him. The grounds of detention have not been supplied to the detenue in the language which he understood. The detention grounds written in English were not accompanied by translation or transcription in Urdu or Kashmiri. Petitioner/detenue has been prejudicially affected and disabled to make an effective representation against detention to the Government. The detaining authority has not shown the awareness about the detenues arrest and involvement in regular case while passing the detention order.

3. Respondent No.2 the detaining authority has filed the counter affidavit, wherein, it is averred that the detenue has been detained on subjective satisfaction and application of mind by respondent No.2 in order to prevent him to indulge in activities pre judicial to the security of the state. It is further stated that the detention order and the grounds have been readover and explained to the detenue in the language which he understood and signature on endorsement of receipt has been obtained from the detenue.

4. The detenues case has been referred to the Advisory Board. After obtaining opinion of the Board detention of the detenue has been confirmed. The grounds of detention are stated to be neither vague nor devoid of any particulars. The detention orders is stated to be based on grounds of detention alone and no other material has been relied on. Therefore, copy of irrelevant material has not been supplied to the detenue. The FIR No. 54/98 registered at P/S Sakakadal Srinagar has not been relied for the detention, therefore, copy thereof has not been furnished to the detenue.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds of detention were not readover and explained to the detenue and besides as the grounds were not accompanied by translation or transcription, there has been no effective communication of the order and grounds to petitioner, thereby he has been legally disabled from making representation against the order of detention to the Government. This ground has been specifically taken in para 11 of the petition and in counter affidavit the para has been replied vaguely in terms,".... have been read over and explained to the detenue in the language which he understood." Which language the detenue understood or in which language the grounds and order was read over, has not been specified. It was also not accompanied by any translation or transcription, therefore, petitioner has been prejudiced and could not avail of the right of making effective representation provided for by article 22 of the Constitution and provisions of public safety Act.

6. On the other hand counsel for respondents Mr. G. Mustaffa, GA, has submitted that as the detention order with grounds was explained to the detenue, therefore, he is not prejudiced, notwithstanding that the translation or transcript on of the grounds did not accompany the grounds couched in english language.

7. Admittedly the order and the grounds of detention are in English language. While communicating the grounds, it was not accompanied by any transcription or translation in language (Urdu or Kashmiri) understood by the petitioner.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document