JUDGMENT :

1. The present Habeas Corpus petition has been filed for quashing the order of detention dated 30.10.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Pulwama, who, in purported exercise of its powers vested in it under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short, Act of 1978), has ordered the detention of the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.

2. The order of detention was challenged on the following grounds:-

(a) That the same was vague which rendered it difficult for the petitioner to make an effective representation to the concerned authority and further that the grounds of detention were non-existent.

(b) That the grounds of detention were replica of the police dossier and therefore the order of detention must be held to be suffering from non-application of mind and resultantly making it unsustainable in law.

(c) That the detaining authority had failed to supply the entire material based upon which the order of detention was passed which make it difficult for the petitioner to make an effective representation to the concerned authority.

(d) That the detenue being an illiterate person could only understand the Kashmiri language but the order of detention was in English and no translated script in kashmiri was furnished nor were the grounds read over and explained to him in the language which he understood, which resulted in depriving the petitioner in exercise of his fundamental right in making his effective representation.

(e) That there is no affidavit of the officer, executing the detention order on record, in the absence whereof, the averments made in the petition that the petition was not supplied the relevant material gets substantiated and further that the requirement of filing affidavit by the executing officer was mandatory as per the ratio of the Apex Court judgment on the point.

3. A detailed reply has been filed by the official respondents rebutting the allegations and contentions of the petitioner. The relevant record has also been produced.

First Ground

4. The first ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the grounds of detention were vague, which rendered it difficult for the petitioner to make an effective representation to the concerned authority and further that the grounds of detention were non-existent.

5. With a view to test this argument, a reference is required to be made to the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention reflect that the petitioner was affiliated with The Resistance Front (TRF), the aim and object of which was to secede the Union Territory of J&K from the Union of India and annex it with Pakistan. It is stated that the petitioner came in contact with various terrorists under whose influence he developed separatist ideology and agreed to carry out subversive activities prejudicial to the security of the State.

It is also stated that the Resistance Front (TRF) was responsible for civilian killings in District Srinagar and other parts of the valley. It is further stated that as per the inputs received from various agencies and blogs on social media platform, it got substantiated that TRF was acting at the behest of agencies from across the border. The petitioner was at the behest of terrorists of TRF across the border providing logistic support including transportation of arms of terrorists from one place to another through unconventional and safe passages.

It is urged that the petitioner being an over ground worker of TRF had been under the instructions of the terrorists for carrying out the subversive activities clandestinely and for killing innocent people. It is also urged that the instructions were being received through a variety of advanced technologies and that it had become possible to identify the petitioner and unearth his linkages with terrorists outfit after using profound analytics.

6. Reliance placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Mohd. Yousu