Judgment

1. District Magistrate, Baramulla – respondent no.2 herein (for succinctness “detaining authority”), has, by Order no.90/DMB/PSA/ 2020 dated 08.05.2020, placed Aijaz Ahmad Bhat son of Mohammad Subhan Bhat resident of Darpora, Goripora, Bomai, Sopore District Baramulla, under preventive detention, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. It is this order, of which petitioner is aggrieved and throws challenge thereto on the grounds tailored in petition on hand.

2. The case set up in instant petition is that detenu has been in terms of impugned order of detention placed under preventive detention and lodged in District Jail, Kupwara.

2.1. It is stated in petition that detenu has been falsely implicated in FIR no.280/2019 under Section 20,23 ULA(P) Act, 7/25 IA Act of police station Sopore for ulterior motives and despite that, he has been placed under preventive detention. The detenu is said to have been initially lodged in District Jail Kupwara and thereafter shifted to District Jail Kathua in the month of August 2020.

2.2. It is averred that impugned order of detention has been passed at the behest of SSP Sopore and subjective satisfaction which is sine qua non for passing order of detention has been drawn by SSP concerned and not by detaining authority, which is not permissible under law.

2.3. It contended that the material relied upon by detaining authority has not been furnished to detenu and detenu has not been informed as to before whom he has to file representation.

2.4. It is maintained that subjective satisfaction has not been derived by detaining authority while passing impugned order of detention inasmuch as grounds of detention have been virtually formulated by SSP concerned as dossier submitted by SSP is ditto copy of grounds of detention.

2.5. It is asserted that grounds of detention are vague sketchy and lacking details and that there is no live link between the order of detention and object, which is sought to be achieved. Detaining authority is stated to have not assigned any compelling and cogent reason for passing detention order.

2.6. It is claimed that order of detention has neither been approved within statutory period nor has any reference been made to advisory board. Detention order is said to have not been approved by government within 12 days as is required in terms of the Act.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents. They insist that detenu has been given the impugned order or detention, grounds of detention and material relied upon by detaining authority. It is contended that detention order was executed on 12.05.2020 against detenu by Executing Officer, ASI, Abdul Rashid no.81/Spr ExK871431 of police station Sopore. Grounds of detention are stated to have been read over and explained to detenu in a language which he fully understood. Detenu is said to have also been informed to make representation to the detaining authority or to the Government, if he desires so and to this effect detenu subscribed his signature on execution report.

4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. I have gone through the detention record submitted by learned counsel for respondents.

5. Prior to adverting to case in hand, it would be most apposite to say that right of personal liberty is most precious right, guaranteed under the Constitution. It has been held to be transcendental, inalienable and available to a person independent of the Constitution. A person is not to be deprived of his personal liberty, except in accordance with procedures established under law and the procedure as laid down, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR SC 597, is to be just and fair. The personal liberty may be curtailed, where a person faces a criminal charge or is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment. Where a person is facing trial on a criminal charge and is temporarily deprived of his personal liberty owing to cri