Point of Law: Detention Order quashed - Anti-social and anti-national activities - Preventive detention involves detaining of a person without trial in order to prevent him from committing certain types of offences. But such detention cannot be made a substitute for ordinary law and absolve investigating authorities of their normal functions of investigating crimes which detenu may have committed.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Order No.10/DMT/PSA/20 dated 29.06.2020, issued by District Magistrate, Pulwama placing detenu namely Manzoor Ahmad Ganaie S/o Ghulam Qadir Ganie, R/o Koil Pulwama, District Pulwama under preventive detention in terms of J&K Public Safety Act, so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and directing his lodgement in Central Jail Srinagar has been challenged, in this writ petition through his wife

2. The order of detention though challenged on various grounds, yet learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the material relied upon by the detaining authority while passing impugned detention order has not been provided to detenu to enable him to make an effective and meaningful representation. Another submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that grounds of detention are replica of police dossier.

3. In their response, respondents have submitted that there is no illegality in the order of detention, as it was necessary to place the detenu under preventive detention so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detenu has been playing a vital role in motivating the youth to indulge in activities like stone pelting, anti-national sloganeering, projecting demonstrations and delivering hatred speeches prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds taken by the detenu are said to be legally misconceived, untenable and without any merit. It is further contended that the grounds of detention are precise, proximate and relevant. The detenu was also informed to make his representation to the Government against his detention order. The warrant was read over and explained to him and the order has been passed after proper application of mind. Detention record has also been produced by the learned counsel for respondents.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.

5. The main ground taken by the detenu, in this writ petition, is that he was not in a position to make an effective and meaningful representation either to the detaining authority or to the Government against his detention because he was not provided the material by the detaining authority, thus, there is violation of provisions of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and in absence of such material he was prevented from making an effective representation.

6. To evaluate the submissions made by learned counsel for parties vis-à-vis furnishing of material to detenu that has been relied upon by detaining authority while issuing impugned detention order, it would be appropriate to go through the detention record, produced by learned counsel for respondents. Detention record contains, amongst others, Execution Report, overleaf detention order, which reveals that four leaves have been furnished to detenu. It does not show or suggest that detenu has been furnished copy of dossier, copies of FIRs and other relevant material relied upon by detaining authority while issuing impugned detention order.

7. Bare reading of impugned detention order divulges that Superintendent of Police, Pulwama, vide his letter no. Pros/PSA/DPO/2020/796-99 dated 28.06.2020, produced dossier, material record, and other connected documents in respect of detenu and it was only after perusal thereof that impugned detention order has been issued by detaining authority. Grounds of detention attribute various incidents and instances to detenu and mention that detenu has been instigating/provoking the masses against the government and his persistent involvement in antisocial and antinational activities is posing severe threat to peace and public order. Detention record also mentions lodgment of two FIRs against the detenu. The material, relied upon by detaining authority, thus, assumes significance in the facts and circumstances of the case. It needs no emphasis, that the detenu cannot be expected to make a meaningful exercise of h