1. By medium of instant petition, quashment of order of detention bearing No.19/DMK/PSA/2018 dated 04.10.2018, issued by District Magistrate, Kulgam, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, is sought on the grounds detailed out therein.

2. In order to deter a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security, sovereignty and integrity of the State or public order, detention order can be and has to be passed. However, the power in issuing preventive orders has to be exercised in a manner which would show that all the safeguards as against the orders of detention are taken into consideration and respected. Liberty is precious, curtailment thereof can be by way of exception but it must have some reasonable basis. In absence of any solid base, to tamper with the right of liberty is not permissible. Any person who, in any way, threatens security of the State or public order has to be dealt with iron hands but constitutional guarantees under such guise cannot be permitted to be defeated.

3. Right to liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution can be negated in view of Article 22(3) (b) of the Constitution which is an exception to Article 21 of the Constitution. The said exception authorizes the concerned authorities to pass preventive detention but while passing such orders, the authority concerned is required to be alive to the personal liberty of a person and such power shall be exercised in a manner which may not have the trappings of depriving a person of the guaranteed liberty. In short an exceptional case has to be made out for passing the order of preventing a person from acting in any manner which shall be prejudicial, in the instant case, to the maintenance of public order but while doing so procedural safeguards are to be respected. Breach in observing the procedural safeguards gives right to the detenue to claim that he has been prejudiced as his liberty has been curtailed de horse the law.

4. Instant case, in effect, is one where the order of detention absolutely suffers from non-application of mind and on plain reading shows that it has been passed in violation of the constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner. The non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority is writ large as in the order impugned Detaining Authority has recorded that “on the basis of grounds of detention placed before him by the Superintendent of Police” he has derived satisfaction regarding detention of the detenue. It is to be made clear that whatever material is collected by the Police or any other agency has to be placed before the Detaining Authority and it is then the Detaining Authority who, on scrutiny, has to ascertain as to whether there is any solid base for the allegations as levelled in the material so collected. After sifting the material, the detaining authority has to derive subjective satisfaction and to formulate grounds of detention. In the instant case it appears that deriving of subjective satisfaction has become a casualty. Simply whatever has been mentioned in the dossier has been mentioned in the grounds of detention, that is why in the order of detention it is recorded that satisfaction is derived from the grounds of detention placed on record by SSP when the allegations contained therein are not substantiated by any record.

5. The non-application of mind is further exposed by the fact, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the detenue has been shown involved in FIR Nos.183/2016, 191/2016, 313/2017 and 314/2017. In the aforesaid FIRs except FIR No.314/2017, the detenue had been admitted to bail but this fact has not been made mention of in the grounds of detention though reference to said FIRs has been made. Either detaining authority has been kept in dark or otherwise detaining authority has not applied its mind properly. While detaining a person under Public Safety Act, detaining authority is under a