Judgment

Sanjeev Kumar, J.-Petitioner, through his uncle Ghulam Rasool Parray, has assailed his detention ordered by District Magistrate, Budgam (the detaining authority) vide its order No.DMB/PSA/03 of 2020 dated 27.01.2020 (the impugned order). In terms of the impugned order aforesaid, the petitioner has been put under preventive detention with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.

2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the impugned order, it is necessary to notice the material on the basis of which the detaining authority has derived its subjective satisfaction for placing the petitioner under preventive detention.

3. As per the grounds of detention served upon the petitioner, which are framed by the detaining authority on the basis of material supplied by Superintendent of Police, Budgam, vide his letter dated 27.01.2020, the petitioner is alleged to be a hardcore, habitual and strong supporter of terrorism unleashed in the Valley by some terrorist organizations. The petitioner, with a view to achieve the object of seceding the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir from Union of India and its consequent merger with Pakistan, has been resorting to activities which have the effect of causing widespread disturbance and instability. The petitioner, it is claimed, had ex-filtrated to POK in the year 2001 in order to obtain training in handling illegal arms and ammunitions where he remained for at least four years and returned to Valley in the year 2004. The petitioner was later on arrested by the police in FIR No.131/2004 under Section 7/25 Arms read with 6 I. W. T Act registered in Police Station, Beerwah. It is further stated that on 18th of April, 2019, P/S Beerwah, received an information from reliable sources that some miscreants had assembled at polling booth Hardulatinah with a view to disrupt the election process and had resorted to heavy stone pelting upon the security forces causing serious injuries to the security force personnel. With regard to this incident, FIR No.49/2019 under Section 148, 149, 336, 353, 427, 307, 332 RPC etc. was registered in Police Station, Beerwah and investigation set in motion. During the course of investigation, involvement of the petitioner in the episode was established.

4. It is on the basis of these allegations, which form part of FIR No.131/2004 and FIR No.49/2019, the Superintendent of Police, Budgam, vide his communication dated 25th of January, 2020, recommended the preventive detention of the petitioner. The detaining authority, relying strongly on the aforesaid allegations contained in two FIRs, arrived at subjective satisfaction that in case the petitioner is not detained under J&K Public Safety Act, the security of the State would be jeopardized and there would be imminent threat to the human life and property. The detaining authority, thus, found it imperative to detain the petitioner by invoking Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act and it is in the aforesaid backdrop, the impugned detention order has been passed against the petitioner and petitioner has been lodged in Kotbalwal Jail, Jammu.

5. The impugned order of detention has been challenged by the petitioner on several grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, laid much emphasis on the following grounds:

(I) That the requisite material relied upon by the detaining authority to derive subjective satisfaction with regard to necessity of putting the petitioner under preventive detention was never supplied to the petitioner thereby incapacitating him from making an effective representation to the detaining authority/government against his detention;

(II) That the grounds of detention are vague, irrelevant and non-existent and, therefore, on the basis thereof, no prudent and reasonable man can make an effective and purposeful representation;

(III) That the detaining authority has relied upon th