JUDGMENT :

Mohd. Akram Chowdhary, J.-Respondent No.2 namely District Magistrate, Pulwama, in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, has passed the detention Order No. 18/DMP/PSA/21 dated 23.04.2021 (for short impugned order), in terms whereof the detenue namely Jehangir Ahmad Bhat has been detained. The said detention order is being challenged through the medium of the instant petition, being in breach of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India read with Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.

2. It is being pleaded in the petition that the detaining authority-respondent No.2 has not attributed any specific allegation against the detenue. Furthermore, it is stated that the detenue has been incapacitated in filing a representation as the grounds of detention are not in a language which could be understood by the detenue. It is being also stated that the detenue is not an English literate person and understands only Kashmiri/Urdu language but the order of detention is in English and it is not possible for him to understand such a hyper technical language. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the detenue that the order of detention and the connected documents annexed with the petition clearly show violation of right of the detenue guaranteed in terms of the Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

3. Respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the detenue was ordered to be detained for maintenance of ‘public order’ and if he would be let free there will be every likelihood of his re-indulging in subversive activists and will continue to instigate the youth of the area to indulge in such activities.

4. Heard and considered.

5. Learned counsel for the detenue while being heard makes reference to the grounds of the detention and states that on a cursory look on the same it is manifest that same are vague. It is nowhere stated in the grounds of detention as to who were the youth whom the detenue had instigated for indulging in subversive activities. The particulars of youth whom the detenue has lured to indulge in subversive activities, as alleged, is also not mentioned in the grounds of detention. In addition, learned counsel submitted that the allegations levelled against the detenue are totally vague as nothing specific has been stated in the grounds of detention.

6. In rebuttal, learned Dy. AG submits that the record reveals that there is no vagueness in the grounds of detention. The procedural safeguards prescribed under the provisions of Public Safety Act and the rights guaranteed to the detenue under the Constitution have strictly been followed in the instant case. The detenue has been furnished all the material, as was required, and was also made aware of his right to make representation to the detaining authority against his detention.

7. Before appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to note that the procedural requirements are the only safeguards available to the detenue since the Court cannot go behind the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Hon’ble Apex Court in a case titled Abdul Latif Abdul Wahad Sheikh Vs. B.K. Jha, reported as (1987) 2 SCC 22, has held that the procedural requirements are the only safeguards available to a detenue since the Court is not expected to go behind the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The procedural requirements are, therefore, to be strictly complied with, if any value is to be attached to the liberty of the subject and the constitutional rights guaranteed to him in that regard.

8. The detention record, as produced, reveals that the detenue was involved in a case registered vide FIR No. 40/2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341 and 307 IPC, at Police Station, Pampore. Involvement of the detenue in the aforementioned case appears to have heavily weighed with the detaining authority while passing detention order. The re