JUDGMENT :

Tashi Rabstan, J.-Impugned in this petition is Order No.PSA/08 dated 10.08.2021 issued by the District Magistrate, Kathua, respondent No.2 herein, whereby Gaggu Din alias Gaggu, petitioner herein (for brevity, detenu), has been placed under preventive detention so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, peace and tranquility in the society as also for the safety of common citizens, particularly the younger generation of the district.

2. The case as set up by the petitioner-detenu is that respondent No.2 while slapping preventive detention of detenu has not adhered to the constitutional safeguards available to him under the Constitution of India as well as the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. It is contended that the detaining authority has issued the detention order without application of mind, arbitrarily and misusing the power vested with respondent No.2, thus deprived the petitioner of his fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is contended that the status of FIRs, which have been made basis for issuing the detention order, have not been disclosed. It is contended that he cannot read or write English, Urdu or Punjabi and only knows Hindi. None of the documents attached with the grounds of detention is in the language which he understands. It is further contended that the petitioner has been deprived of making an effective representation against the order of detention by not informing him that he can make representation to the detaining authority.

3. Respondents in their counter affidavit resisted the contentions of petitioner-detenu averring therein that the aim of preventive detention is to stop the illegal activities of an individual which otherwise cannot be stopped when such an individual creates havoc in the society which leads to public disorder, peace, stability and in certain cases also raises alarm bells regarding the nation’s unity and integrity. It is averred that the petitioner-detenu falls under the category of being a threat to the public order, peace and stability in the society, thus, falls under the category of Section 8 of the Public Safety Act. It is further averred that each and every norm has been followed while detaining the detenu under the Public Safety Act. In support of their contentions, respondents have also relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court, titled as, Union of India vs Simple Happy Dhakad as well as a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Miyan Abdul Qayoom vs Union Territory of J&K.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival contentions and also perused the record.

5. The record so produced reveals that the petitioner-detenu under his signatures received a total of 49 leaves including the copy of detention order, grounds of detention, notice of detention, copy of dossier and other related documents at Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. The petitioner-detenu was also informed that he can make a representation to the Government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention order, if he so desires.

6. Although right of personal liberty is most precious right, guaranteed under the Constitution, which has been held to be transcendental, inalienable and available to a person independent of the Constitution, yet the personal liberty may be curtailed, where a person faces a criminal charge or is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment. 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. Where a person is facing trial on a criminal charge and is temporarily deprived of his personal liberty owing to criminal charge framed against him, he has an opportunity to defend himself and to be acquitted of the charge in case prosecu