The main legal point established in the judgment is that grounds of preventive detention must be clear and specific, and the detaining authority must apply its own mind when formulating such grounds.

JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashment of Order No.47/DMA/PSA/DET/2022 dated 29.06.2022, passed by District Magistrate, Anantnag (for short “detaining authority”) whereby detenu, namely, Zubair Ahmad Khan S/o Mohd Amin Khan R/o Rampora Mattan, District Anantnag, has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State, on the grounds made mention of therein.

2. Respondents have filed reply affidavit, insisting therein that the activities indulged in by detenu are highly prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory and, therefore, his remaining at large is a threat to the security of Union Territory of J&K. The activities narrated in the grounds of detention have been reiterated in the reply affidavit filed by respondents. The factual averments that detenu was not supplied with relevant material relied upon in the grounds of detention have been refuted. It is insisted that all the relevant material, which has been relied upon by the detaining authority, was provided to the detenu at the time of execution of warrant.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague and indefinite and no prudent man can make an effective representation against these allegations inasmuch as there are no particulars of persons with whom he is alleged to have association or to whom he is alleged to have provided any support, food, shelter, and even there is no mention of any particular date(s) to reflect any clear cut prejudicial activity against detenu. It is also averred that detenu has been detained on the opinion of the detaining authority based on contents of dossier, FIR and other supporting documents whereas fact of the matter is that neither any FIR has been indicated in the dossier nor any complete details thereof have been given in grounds of detention or furnished to him. It is also stated that the detenu is sole bread earner of his family, having minor four children, reading in Class 5th, 2nd, LKG and fourth one is at the age of one year, therefore, he is required to attend his family. It is stated that it appears that grounds of detention are replica of dossier and unequivocally reflect and show non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority and as a consequence of which impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.

5. Taking into account the rival contentions of parties and submissions made by learned counsel for parties, it would be relevant to go through the grounds of detention. Perusal thereof reveals that same are vague and ambiguous, and do not refer to any date, month or year of the activities, which have been attributed to detenu. Detention in preventive custody on the basis of such vague and ambiguous grounds of detention cannot be justified. It may not be out of place to mention here that preventive detention is largely precautionary and is based on suspicion. The Court is ill-equipped to investigate into circumstances of suspicion on which such anticipatory action must be largely based. The nature of the proceeding is incapable of objective assessment. The matters to be considered by the detaining authority are whether the person concerned, having regard to his past conduct judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and other relevant material, is likely to act in a prejudicial manner as contemplated by the provisions of the law and, if so, whether it is necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from so acting. These are not the matters susceptible of objective determination, and they could not have been intended to be judged by objective standards. They are essentially the matters which have to be administratively determined for the purpose of taking administrative action. Their determination is, therefo