Back
VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL
Javid Ahmad Dar – Appellant
Versus
U. T. of J&k – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashment of detention Order No.DMB/PSA/29 of 2002 dated 27.06.2022, passed by District Magistrate, Budgam, whereby detenu, namely, Javid Ahmad Dar S/o Gh. Hassan Dar R/o Soznipora Yarikhah, Khansahib, Budgam, has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State, on the grounds made mention of therein.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. I have gone through the detention record produced by counsel for respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague and indefinite and no prudent man can make an effective representation against these allegations inasmuch as the cases mentioned in grounds of detention have no nexus with detenu and detaining authority has not given any reasonable justification to pass impugned order of detention. He has vehemently argued that grounds of detention are replica of dossier and unequivocally reflects and shows nonapplication of mind on the part of detaining authority and as a consequence
The grounds of detention must be specific and not vague, and the detaining authority must consider the detenu's representation without delay.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that grounds of preventive detention must be clear and specific, and the detaining authority must apply its own mind when formulating such grounds.
Detention orders must comply with Article 22(5) of the Constitution, ensuring supply of grounds and consideration of representation; vagueness in grounds renders detention illegal.
The detenue's right to make an effective representation against preventive detention, as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, must be upheld, and failure to supply the materia....
Non-consideration of a representation against preventive detention violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution, rendering the detention order illegal.
Failure to furnish all material forming the basis of preventive detention and non-consideration of the detenue's representation against the detention amount to violations of constitutional safeguards....
Non-consideration of a detenu's representation against preventive detention violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution, rendering the detention unconstitutional.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
