The main legal point established in the judgment is that the detention order under the J&K Public Safety Act was unsustainable due to the non-supply of essential documents, violation of language rights, and sufficiency of ordinary law to deal with the alleged criminal activities.

JUDGEMENT

1. Petitioner by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India has sought the indulgence of this Court for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondents to release the petitioner from illegal detention by quashing Detention Order No. 34/DMK/PSA/2022, dated 10.04.2022 issued by respondent No. 02 on the following grounds:-

(i) that the petitioner/detenue got missing on 21.11.2021 whereby the missing report was accordingly lodged by father of the petitioner with police on 23.11.2021, after filing the missing report petitioner/detenue was shown to petitioner on 27.11.2021 at P/S Sadder Anantnag where he was kept for one month and was shifted to District Jail, Mattan Anantnag in judicial custody in FIR No. 493/2021 of P/S Anantnag, no bail application was, however, filed by the detenue or by the petitioner before any court of law for releasing him in the aforesaid FIR, the detenue therefore continues in judicial custody though nothing was established against him during the investigation;

(ii) that respondent No. 02 has not provided copy of letter dated 08.04.2022 which was forwarded by SSP Kulgam in the form of dossier or any other material viz; copy of FIR, statements of prosecution witnesses recording under section 161 Cr.P.C. etc. to the petitioner to enable him to make effective and meaningful representation to the detaining authority, the detenue has been detained by respondent No. 2 on vague, uncertain, untrue, and non-existent grounds;

(iii) that the grounds of detention are in English language whereas the detenue only understands Urdu or Kashmiri language, non-supply of the grounds of detention and other relevant material in the language known to the detenue violates the provision of law and renders the detention order unsustainable in the eyes of law;

(iv) that the detenue/petitioner was already in judicial custody in FIR No. 493/2021, he had not applied for bail in the said FIR, there was no compelling reason for respondent No. 02 to detain the detenue under Public Safety Act, there was no material before the detaining authority that the detenue was likely to be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR, therefore, the detention order is unsustainable and requires its quashment;

(v) that the detenue/petitioner has been booked in FIR No. 493/2021 for commission of offences under sections 18, 20, 38 of UAPA Act read with 7/25 Arms Act of P/S Anantnag, some of the offences under sections 18/20 of UAPA are punishable upto life imprisonment, it is settled law that if criminal law is sufficient to deal with the activities of the detenue, taking recourse to provisions of preventive detention is unwarranted;

2. Respondent No. 02 (District Magistrate, Kulgam) has filed counter affidavit, wherein it has been specifically contended, that the petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands, the contentions made in the petition are baseless, as such merit outright rejection, the purpose of preventive detention is to detain a person and not to punish him for something that he has done but to prevent him from doing it. It is contended, that the detenue came to be detained under the provisions of Public Safety Act in terms of Detention Order No. 34/DMK/PSA/2022, dated 10.04.2022 issued by respondent No. 2 (District Magistrate Kulgam), all the statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the Detaining Authority, the detaining authority has passed the detention order after deriving subjective satisfaction in the matter, grounds of detention, order of detention as well as entire material relied upon by the detaining authority came to be furnished to the detenue well within the statutory period as provided under section 13 of the Act, the warrant of execution was accordingly executed by the executing officer where the detenue was handed over to Superintendent Kotbalwal Jail Jammu for his lodgment, the contents of detention