The detention order must provide compelling reasons for the detention, and the grounds of detention should not be a verbatim copy of the police dossier. Additionally, the detaining authority must consider any representation submitted by the detenu, as required by constitutional provisions.

JUDGMENT :

JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.

1. The instant writ petition arises out of the detention order bearing No. DMS/PSA/81/2021 dated 20.10.2021, (hereinafter for short the impugned order) passed against the detenu, namely, Sajad Hussain Gull, by respondent no. 2-District Magistrate, Srinagar (for brevity detaining authority), under and in terms of provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short the ‘Act’). The detention order dated 20.10.2021 is challenged by the petitioner through the medium of instant petition and is seeking quashment of the same on the grounds taken in the writ petition.

2. It is being stated in the petition that the detenu is a law-abiding citizen and has never indulged in any subversive activity prejudicial to public order or security of the State. The detenu is stated to have been arrested and thereafter came to be detained under preventive custody by the respondents in terms of impugned order and lodged at Central Jail, Srinagar, without there being any compelling reasons thereof.

3. The impugned order is being challenged, inter-alia, on the grounds that detenu had not been provided copies of the relevant material, like copy of dossier, details of any incidence with regard to the alleged association of the detenu with the terrorist organizations or any particular incident regarding his links with secessionist organizations, date and year when the detenu has done that, not a single incident has been spelt out, referred to in the grounds of detention, material, if any, collected during the course of investigation, thus, depriving him to file an effective representation against his detention. The said failure is stated to have infringed the constitutional and statutory rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act. A representation submitted against the detention by the petitioner is contended to have not been either considered or decided by the respondents.

4. On the other hand, respondents, in their reply affidavit filed, resist and controvert the contentions raised and grounds urged by the petitioner in the petition and have insisted that the order of detention is preventive and not punitive in nature, while it is being admitted by respondents that detenu was detained pursuant to impugned order. It is being stated that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have had been fulfilled and complied with while detaining the detenu.

5. It is being contended by respondents that impugned order was executed in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and that the detenu was handed over to the Superintendent Central Jail, Srinagar, for lodgment and that the contents of detention order/warrant and grounds of detention were read over and explained to the detenu in the language which he fully understood and in lieu thereof the detenu subscribed his signatures on the execution report/order.

6. It is being next averred by respondents that impugned order was executed by PSI Amandeep Singh No. 365/PAU of Police Station, Panthachowk on 26.10.2021, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and that the detenu was handed over to the Superintendent, Central Jail Srinagar, for lodgment.

7. It is being next stated that the Advisory Board, after considering the material placed before it, in terms of Section 14 of the Act, held that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenu. On receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board, the Government confirmed order of detention in terms of Government Order No. Home/PB-V/1084 of 2021 dated 16.11.2021. Respondents in the process are stated to have complied with all statutory, constitutional provisions, and followed all requisite formalities without violating any of them.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter.

9. While dealing with the first contention/ground of challenge urged by the counsel for the petit