The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing the detenu with all documents and materials influencing the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction in a language he understands, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution, failure of which would vitiate the detention order.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 05.10.2012 passed in Habeas Corpus Petition (HCP) no. 80/2012, dismissing the writ petition. In order to appreciate the grounds pleaded in the appeal, it becomes imperative to give a brief resume of the facts.

2. The detenu, Imtiyaz Ahmad Akhoon son of Ali Mohammad Akhoon resi#31;dent of Gulshan Bagh, Lal Bazar, Srinagar, was arrested on 04.01.2012 in connection with case FIR no. 01/2012 registered at Police Station, Lal Bazar under Sections 8/20-21 Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances-Act, 1988. While being in judicial custody in connection with the aforesaid criminal case in the Central Jail, Srinagar, the Divisional Commissioner, Srinagar, in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act, passed Order no. DIVCOM-"K"/08/2012 dated 30.04.2012 directing detention of the detainee.

3. The detenu, through his wife, challenged the aforesaid order through the medium of HCP no. 80/2012, inter alia, on the grounds that the order of detention suffers from non-application of mind; that no compelling reason or circumstance was disclosed in the order or grounds of detention to take the detenu in preventive detention, moreso in view of the fact that as on the date of passing of the aforesaid order of detention, the detenue was already in custody; that the detenu has not been provided the material forming basis of the detention order in the translated form so as to enable him, being an illiterate person, to make an effective representation against his detention; that the grounds of detention have not been explained to the detenu in the language which he understands; and that the detention order has not been executed in time, which renders the detention illegal.

4. Upon notice being issued, the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, i.e., the detaining authority filed his counter affidavit contesting the petition and contro#31;verting the grounds taken therein. In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, it is specifically stated that "the detenu was provided grounds of detention alongwith a communication No. Divcom/RA-Detn/(15)/2012 dated 30.4.2012 whereunder he was informed of his right of representation". Again, in paragraph 10 thereof, it is clearly stated that "the detenu has been provided material in the shape of grounds of detention, which form basis for his detention. The contents of detention warrant as well as that of grounds of detention have been read over and explained to the detenu not only in Urdu language, but also in Kashmiri language which happens to be his own language".

5. The learned Single Judge, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the detention record, dismissed the Habeas Corpus petition. Hence the present appeal.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Deputy Advocate General, perused the writ records as well as the original detention record produced before us and given our thoughtful consideration to the matter.

7. It is settled law that preventive detention is an evil, but a necessary evil. The only precious and valuable right guaranteed to a detenu is of making an effective representation against the order of detention. Such an effective representation can only be made by a detenu when he is supplied the relevant grounds of detention, including the materials considered by the detaining authority for arrived at the requisite subjective satisfaction to pass the detention order. In the event such grounds of detention and materials are not supplied to the detenue, the right of the detenu to file such representation is impinged upon and the detention order is resultantly vitiated. Judgements on this point, both of the Supreme Court and of various High Courts, including our own High Court, are galore. We may refer to one such judgment of the Supreme Court herein. In Ibrahim Alunad Batti v. State of Gujarat, (1982)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document