The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for detention orders to be based on specific and non-vague grounds, the need to communicate the grounds of detention in a language understood by the detenue, and the necessity for the detaining authority to apply its own mind independently when formulating grounds of detention.

JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the impugned detention order bearing no. 27/DMB/PSA of 2022 dated 25.06.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 (District Magistrate, Bandipora), whereby the detenue, namely, Farooq Ahmad Khan has been placed in preventive detention under Section 8(1)(a) of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, and detained the petitioner in Central Jail Kot Bhalwal, Jammu.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2. It is contented by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned detention order has been passed mechanically and without application of mind. It has been further contended that the grounds on which the detention order is based contained bald assertions and no specific allegations which could have been rebutted by the detenue to show that the grounds of detention are non-existing.

3. It is further pleaded by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondents have not provided him the chance of making an effective representation against the detention order which strikes at the root of fundamental rights guaranteed to the detenue. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has not been provided the relevant material on the basis of which the impugned order was passed, he has been denied of effective representation and the action of the respondents, as such, is in contravention to the Section 13 of the Public Safety Act, 1978.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of detention violated the fundamental rights of the detenue. The counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the right of personnel liberty is one of the most cherished rights which is guaranteed by the Constitution of India and in order to curtail the same there need to be cogent cause and reasons. It was further contended that in order to deprive a person of his right to life & liberty, there must be compelling reasons to so.

5. In light of the same, it has been vehemently contended that the order of detention passed against the detenue is based on his whims and caprices of the respondent no. 2. There are no cogent and specific grounds against the detenue and on the other hand, the grounds of detention are vague, ambiguous and bereft of details.

6. Furthermore, it was contented by the counsel for the petitioner that there is no whisper to the fact as to how the detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction in order to detain the detenue, thereby throwing the normal procedure of law to winds. A perusal of the grounds of detention reveal no specified compelling reasons to detain the detenue.

7. Another contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order of detention has been passed without proper application of mind by the detaining authority. The grounds of detention are a replica and carbon copy of the dossier which has been provided by the respondents. The detaining authority has acted as a rubber stamp and issued the order without applying his mind to form an independent subjective satisfaction to justify the detention.

8. The further case of the petitioner is that the order impugned has been issued by respondent no. 2 without recording his independent subjective satisfaction and, thus, the detenue's liberty has been curtailed illegally and unconstitutionally.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that the respondents have passed the impugned order without adhering to the provisions of the Public Safety Act and, as such, the order impugned cannot sustain the test of law and is liable to be quashed. It is the specific stand on behalf of the petitioner that the procedural and constitutional safeguards have not been followed by the respondents while issuing the impugned order of detention.

10. The petitioners have further taken a plea that the detenue's educational qualification is just 9th class pass, and therefore, is not well acquainted/conversant