The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of strict compliance with procedural safeguards, including the communication of grounds of detention in a language understood by the detenue and the right to make representation against the detention order.

JUDGMENT :

1. District Magistrate, Kathua (hereinafter called 'Detaining Authority') in exercise of powers under section 8 (1)(a)(i) of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short, 'Act of 1978'), passed the detention Order No. DMK/JC/2022-23/547-52 Dated 28.05.2022 (for short 'impugned order'), in terms whereof the detenue namely Roshan Din S/O Feroz Dion R/O Spral Pain Tehsil Marheen, District Kathua (for short 'detenue') has been detained.

2. The impugned detention order has been challenged through the medium of the instant petition, being in breach of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India read with Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.

3. It is being pleaded in the petition that the detaining authority-respondent No. 2 has not attributed any specific allegation against the detenue. Furthermore, it is stated that the detenue has been incapacitated in filing are presentation as the grounds of detention are not in a language which could be understood by the detenue. It is also being stated that the neither the petitioner is threat to the public order nor he has committed any such crime which has disturbed the society at large. It is also being stated that the detenue is not an English literate person and understands only Urdu language but the order of detention is in English and it is not possible for him to understand such a hyper technical language. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the detenue that the order of detention and the connected documents annexed with the petition clearly show violation of right of the detenue guaranteed in terms of the Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

4. Respondents in their counter affidavits have stated that the detenue was ordered to be detained for maintenance of 'public order' and had he been let free there would have been every likelihood of his re-indulging in criminal activities. It is being stated that the power of preventive detention is different from punishment; preventive detention aimed at stopping the illegal activities of an individual which otherwise under common law both criminal/civil cannot be stopped and the said individual creates a havoc in the society which leads to public disorder, peace, stability and in certain cases also raises alarm bells regarding the National Unity and Integrity; that the petitioner falls under the category of Section 8 of the Public Safety Act, being a threat to the public order, peace and stability in the society. It is also being stated that the petitioner is involved in numerous criminal activities, was not likely to desist from his criminal activities which were prejudicial to the maintenance of peace and public order in the District Kathua.

5. Heard learned counsel for both the sides at length and considered the record.

6. Learned counsel for the detenue while being heard makes reference to the grounds of the detention and states that on a cursory look on the same it is manifest that same are vague. It is also submitted that the Detaining Authority on the basis of dossier submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Kathua, without application of mind and without evaluating the allegations alleged against the detenue in the said dossier, copy of which was not even provided to the detenue, proceeded to pass impugned detention order whereby the detenue has been detained and directed to be lodged at Central Jail Jammu. In addition, learned counsel submitted that the allegations levelled against the detenue are totally vague as nothing specific has been stated in the grounds of detention.

7. In rebuttal, learned Dy. AG submits that the record reveals that there is no vagueness in the grounds of detention. The procedural safeguards prescribed under the provisions of Public Safety Act and the rights guaranteed to the detenue under the Constitution have strictly been followed in the instant case. The detenue has been furnished all the material, as was required, and was also made aware of