JUDGMENT :

M.A. Chowdhary, J.-Respondent No.2 namely District Magistrate, Ramban (hereinafter called ‘Detaining Authority’) in exercise of powers under Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short, ‘Act of 1978’), passed the detention Order No. DMR/PSA/2021/1667-72 dated 09.07.2021 (for short ‘impugned order’), in terms whereof the detenue namely Tariq Ahmed S/O Abdul Rehman R/O Hollan Tehsil Banihal District Ramban has been detained.

2. The impugned detention order has been 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.

3. 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 also being stated that the detenue is not an English literate person who is just 8th pass and understands only 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.

4. Respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the detenue was ordered to be detained for maintenance of ‘public order’ and had he been let free there would have been every likelihood of his re-indulging in anti national/anti social activities and will continue create law and order problem by organizing strikes and anti national rallies in the Banihal area of District Ramban with the association of other likeminded people of the area.

5. Heard learned counsel for both the sides at length and considered the record.

6. 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 also submitted that the Detaining Authority on the basis of dossier submitted by Superintendent of Police, Ramban, without application of mind and without evaluating the allegations alleged against the detenue in the said dossier, copy of which was not even provided to the detenue, proceeded to pass impugned detention order whereby the detenue has been detained and directed to be lodged at Central Jail Jammu. 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.

7. In rebuttal, learned GA 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 as well as government, against his detention.

8. Personal liberty is one of the most cherished freedoms, perhaps more important than the other freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. It was for this reason that the Founding Fathers enacted the safeguards in Article 22 in the Constitution so as to limit the power of the State to detain a person without trial, which may otherwise pass the test of Article 21, by humanising the harsh authority over individual liberty. In a democracy governed by the rule of law, the drastic power to detain a person without trial for security of the State and/or maintenance of public order, must be strictly construed. However, where individual liberty com