The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review over administrative decisions in preventive detention cases, emphasizing the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and the compliance with procedural safeguards.

JUDGEMENT

Tashi Rabstan, J:

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 15th December 2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition, being WP(Crl) no.120/2022, titled as Hilal Rashid Khan v. UT of J&K and another, and for setting-aside the same on the grounds tailored therein.

2. We have heard learned counsel for parties. We have gone through the writ record as also impugned judgement and considered the matter.

3. Assailing the impugned judgement, counsel appearing for appellant has stated that learned Writ Court while passing impugned judgement has not appreciated and considered the grounds in writ petition in its right perspective inasmuch as in ground (v) of writ petition, appellant had challenged his detention order on the ground of there being no live and proximate link between the detention order and subversive activities attributed to him. While last illegal activity alleged against appellant dates back to the year 2020, detention order does not mention any fresh illegal activity on the part of appellant to necessitate taking him into preventive detention. He also avers that the learned Writ Court also did not consider and appreciate the averment of writ petitioner that grounds of detention have no nexus with detenu. To cement this assertion, counsel for appellant has relied upon Sama Aruna v. State of Telangana (2018) 1 SCC 150.

3.1. The above averments of counsel for appellant are misconceived. The learned Writ Court has taken care of these submission of appellant while rendering judgement impugned. Perusal of grounds of detention reveals that exclusive subjective satisfaction has not been reached on the basis of FIRs, but there had been inputs, reports and material before the detaining authority which suggested that detenu was reportedly helping active terrorists in Lolab Valley to identify civil/PRI targets and his open roaming was an imminent threat to the pro-government entities residing in Lolab Valley.

3.2. The Supreme Court in the case of Debu Mahato v. State of W.B. (1974) 4 SCC 135, has categorically observed and said that while ordinarily-speaking one act may not be sufficient to form requisite satisfaction, there is no such invariable rule and that in a given case “one act may suffice”. That was a case of wagon-breaking and given the nature of the Act, it was held therein that “one act is sufficient”. The same principle was reiterated in the case of Anil Dely v. State of W.B. (1974) 4 SCC 514. It was only a case of theft of railway signal material. Here too “one act was held to be sufficient”.

3.3. Similarly, in Israil S K v. District Magistrate of West Dinajpur (1975) 3 SCC 292 and Dharua Kanu v. State of W.B. (1975) 3 SCC 527, single act of theft of telegraph copper wires in huge quantity and removal of railway fish-plates respectively, was held sufficient to sustain the order of detention.

3.4. In Saraswathi Seshagiri v. State of Kerala (1982) 2 SCC 310, a case arising under a single act, viz. attempt to export a huge amount of Indian currency was held sufficient.

3.5. In short, the principle appears to be this:

“Though ordinarily one act may not be held sufficient to sustain an order of detention, one act may sustain an order of detention if the act is of such a nature as to indicate that it is an organised act or a manifestation of organised activity.”

3.6. The gravity and nature of the act is also relevant. The test is whether the act is such that it gives rise to an inference that the person would continue to indulge in similar prejudicial activity. That is the reason why single acts of wagon-breaking, theft of signal material, theft of telegraph copper wires in huge quantity and removal of railway fish-plates were held sufficient by the Supreme Court.

3.7. Similarly, where a person tried to export huge amount of Indian currency to a foreign country in a planned and premeditated manner, as in the present case detenu has been found continuously indulging in preju