The grounds of detention must be specific and not vague, and the detaining authority must consider the detenu's representation without delay.

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 of which impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. He also states that detenu has never associated himself with any terrorist organisation and has also no connection with any terrorist organisation and he has never acted on the directions and signals of any persons whether inside or outside the Union Territory and that the detenu has never provided any logistic support or transported any arms of any person from one place to another and the detenus is not an OGW and is not in touch with any organisation and has not been taking any instruction from any person. It is averred that although representation was made by father of detenu to respondents as also to the Chairman, Advisory Board for releasing the detenu, yet the same was neither considered and decided by respondents nor detenu was produced before the Advisory Board for providing him an opportunity of being heard so that he could explain to the members of the Board that detenu is innocent and his order of detention deserves to be revoked and he be set at liberty.

4. Respondents have filed reply affidavit, insisting therein that the activities indulged in by detenu are prejudicial to the security of the State, and that the activities narrated in the grounds of detention have been reiterated in the reply affidavit filed by respondents. The factual averments that detenu was not supplied with relevant material relied upon in the grounds of detention have been refuted. It is insisted that all the relevant material, which has been relied upon by the detaining authority, was provided to the detenu at the time of execution of warrant.

5. Taking into account the rival contentions of parties and submissions made by learned counsel for parties, it would be relevant to go through the grounds of detention. Perusal thereof reveals that same are vague and ambiguous, and do not refer to any date, month or year of the activities, which have been attributed to detenu. The detaining authority even does not have disclosed any activity which would be prejudicial to the security of the State. Detention in preventive custody on the basis of such vague and ambiguous grounds cannot be justified. It may be mentioned here that preventive detention is largely precautionary and is based on suspicion. The Court is ill-equipped to investigate into circumstances of suspicion on which such anticipatory action must be largely based. The nature of the proceeding is incapable of objective assessment. The matters to be considered by the detaining authority are whether the person concerned, having regard to his past conduct judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and other relevant material, is likely to act in a prejudicial manner as contemplated by the provisions of the law and, if so, whether it is necessary to d