The main legal point established in the judgment is that the detenue must be provided with the material on which the detention order is based in order to make an effective representation against the detention order, and procedural requirements are the safeguards available to the detenue.

JUDGMENT :

MOKSHA KHAJURI KAZMI, J.

1. Through the medium of this Habeas Corpus petition, Order No. DMS/PSA/134/2021 dated 28.02.2022, passed by District Magistrate, Srinagar, whereby detenue, namely, Shahid Ahmad Sheikh @ Ragga S/o Mohammad Akbar Sheikh R/o Panzinara, Shalteng, Srinagar, has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State is sought to be quashed on the grounds taken in the memo of the petition. The impugned order has been passed by the Detaining Authority on the basis of material supplied by Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar, vide his Communication No. LGL/Det-3400/2022/3202-05 dated 26.02.2022.

2. The main grounds on which the detention is sought to be quashed are that the communication dated 26.02.2022, issued by respondent No. 3 addressed to respondent No. 3 along with connected material, such as dossier and other material on the basis of which the detention order has been passed, has not been furnished to the detenue. The respondent No. 2 has however, informed the detenue regarding his right to make a representation against the detention order but since no material was furnished to the detenue, therefore he has not been able to make an effective representation Further, the allegations made in the grounds of detention have no nexus with detenue and Detaining Authority has not given any reasonable justification to pass impugned order of detention, as a consequence of which impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.

3. Respondents have filed counter affidavit stating therein that the activities of the detenue are highly prejudicial to the security of the State and, therefore, his remaining at large is a threat to the security of the State. The activities narrated in the grounds of detention has been reiterated in the counter affidavit. The factual averments that detenue was not supplied with relevant material relied upon in the grounds of detention have been refuted. It is stated that all the relevant material, which has been relied upon by the Detaining Authority, was provided to the detenue at the time of execution of warrant.

4. In view of the stand taken by the parties, it would be apt to go through the detention record produced by Mr. Zahid Hussain, learned Government Advocate. The detention record, inter-alia, contains “Confirmation of detention order” “Execution Report” or “Dossier” and “Grounds of detention.” It would be advantageous to reproduce relevant portion of “Execution Report” hereunder:

“The PSA (01 Leaf), Notice (01 leaf), grounds of detention (03 leaves) and copy of FIR one leaf have been handed over to the detenue in Central Jail, Srinagar on 01.03.2022, (total 06 leaves). However, Dossier, copies, statements of witness have not been handed over the detenue and accordingly he was informed about his right to make a representation to the Government as well as Detaining Authority......”

Thus, from perusal of “Execution Report” it is crystal clear that detenue has been provided only 06 leaves, i.e. PSA warrant, notice, grounds of detention and a copy of FIR but has not been provided the dossier and the other relevant material.

5. Perusal of impugned detention order reveals that on the basis of dossier the Detaining Authority has drawn its satisfaction that with a view to prevent detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, it was necessary to detain him under necessary provisions of law. So, it is on the basis of dossier and other connected material/documents that impugned detention order has been passed by the Detaining Authority. The grounds of detention, gives reference to various alleged activities of the detenue that appears to have weighed the Detaining Authority to pass the detention order. The detention record also does not indicate that dossier and other connected material were ever supplied to detenue, on the basis whereof impugned detention order has been pa