The detenue's right to be supplied with all the material forming the basis of his detention, as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, is essential for an effective and purposeful representation and renders a detention order unsustainable if not fulfilled.

JUDGMENT

1. By the medium of instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and veracity of the order No.20/DMB/PSA of 2021 dated 16.12.2021, issued by District Magistrate, Bandipora- respondent No.2 herein, in terms whereof, Tawqeer Ahmad Sheergojree S/o Abdul Ahad Sheergojree R/o Naaz Colony, Bandipora (hereinafter referred to as the detenue), has been ordered to be taken into preventive custody and lodged in Central Jail, Jammu (Kotbhalwal).

2. The petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind, inasmuch as the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and that the same have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent on which no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations. It has been further contended that the Constitutional procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material which formed basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner.

3. Upon being put to notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their reply affidavit, wherein they have disputed the averments made in the petition and insisted that the activities of detenue are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention along with the material relied upon by the detaining authority were handed over to the detenue and the same were read over and explained to him. It is contended that the grounds urged by the petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and without any merit. That the detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention. It is further claimed in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Hardhan Saha v. State of W.B (1975) 3 SCC 198, Boriahan Gorey vs. State of WB, (1972) 2 SCC 550, Ashim Kumar Rav vs. State of WB,  (1973) 4 SCC 76, Abdul Aziz vs. District Magistrate, Burdwan, (1973) 1 SCC 301 and Debu Mahato vs. State of WB, AIR 1974 SC 816. The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.

4. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

5. A perusal of the material on record reveals that the petitioner has received detention order (01 leaf), notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (03 leaves), dossier of detention (Nil), copies of FIR, statements of witnesses and other related relevant documents (nil) (total 05 leaves), and in token whereof, his signatures have been obtained on 'receipt of grounds of detention', which forms part of detention record. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the copies of the police dossier have been furnished to the detenue. Rather the record produced by the respondents corroborates the fact that copy of the police dossier that has been heavily relied upon by the detaining authority while framing the grounds of detention has not been furnished to the detenue.

6. It needs no emphasis that the detenue cannot be expected to make an effective and purposeful representation which is his constitutional right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, unless and until the material, on which detention is based, is supplied to the detenue. The failure on the part of detaining authority to supply the whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention, renders the detention order illegal and unsu