The judgment establishes the importance of clear and specific grounds for preventive detention, strict adherence to constitutional and statutory safeguards, and the provision of necessary material for effective representation against the detention order.

1. The petitioner through the medium of instant petition throws challenge to the order No. DMS/II/271-75 dated 29th September 2009 whereby the respondent No. 2 in exercise of powers under Section 8 of J&K Public Safety Act 1978, has ordered preventive detention of the Mohammad Yousuf Mir Son of Ghulam Qadir Mir Resident of Ratnipora Shopian at present Natipora, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as "detenue") and directed the detenue to be lodged in Kotbalwal Jail Jammu. It appears, that the detenue was earlier placed under preventive detention vide order No. DMS/PSA/29/2008 dated 29th September 2008 (Annexure-A). The detention order was challenged in Habeas Corpus petition No. 245 of 2008, allowed by this Court on 4th February 2009 and the detenue (Annexure-C) directed to be released from custody forthwith. The detenue claims to have been re-arrested in June 2009, kept in detention in various police stations and interrogations centres where-after the detenue vide order No. DMS/PSA/08/2009 dated 8th June 2009 dated 8th June 2009 was placed under preventive detention. The detenue once again approached this Court with Habeas Corpus petition registered as HCP No. 101/2009. The petition was decided on 16.9.2009 (Annexure-G). The detention order was quashed and the detenue directed to be released from the custody. The detenue, allegedly was not released by the respondents and after having been detained in different police stations, was once again put under preventive detention under the order impugned herein (Annexure H).

2. The detention order No. DMS/PSA/50/2009 dated 29.10. 2009 is challenged on the following grounds:-

(i) That the material claimed to have been gone through and relied upon by the respondent No. 2 while making the impugned detention order was not supplied to the detenue to enable the detenue make a representation against his detention.

(ii) That the respondents did not furnish translated copy of the grounds of detention to the detenue to enable the petitioner/detenue to go through and understand the grounds of detention and make a representation to the competent authority against the detention.

(iii) That the respondent No. 3 while executing the impugned detention order did not read over and explain the grounds of detention to the detenue in the language he understands and resultantly the detenue was not able to make an effective representation against the order of detention to the competent authority.

(iv) That the respondent No. 2 unmindful of his legal duty to inform the detenue that he can make a representation to the respondent No. 2 as also the Government against his order of detention, failed, and avoided to inform the detenue that the detenue can make such a representation to the respondent No. 2 as well.

(v) That after this court quashed the order of detention No. DMS.PSA/08/2009 dated 8.6.2009, the detenue in violation of the court direction was kept in detention in police stations including Central Jail Srinagar and was never released from detention; that the grounds spelt out in the impugned order of detention that the detenue after his release in consequence of court order dated 8th June 2009 continued to peruse secessionist activities was palpably baseless and unfounded.

(vi) That even if, it was assumed that the detenue after his release pursuant to High Court order dated 8.6.2009 was released and thereafter arrested on 8th October 2009 in connection with FIR 155/2008 Police Station Sadder, as the detenue had not applied for bail nor was there any material available to the respondents to indicate that such a bail application was presented, there was no reason to slap preventive detention on the detenue.

(vii) That the impugned detention order was not sustainable under law, in as much as the detention order was made on the ground of apprehended activities of the detenue prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of State and the respondent No. 2 lacked power and jurisdiction to make detention on the said

Click Here to Read the rest of this document