The right to be communicated the grounds of detention and to be supplied all the material on which the grounds are based is essential for making a meaningful representation against the detention, as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner, in terms of the detention order No. 11-DMG-PSA-2022 dated 12.04.2022 (for short ‘impugned order’), has been detained in the interest of security of the State by respondent No.2-District Magistrate Ganderbal - (for short ‘detaining authority’) in exercise of powers conferred on him under the provisions of Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. The said detention order has been challenged through the medium of present petition, allegedly being in breach of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner has pleaded in the petition that the detenue was arrested by the police without any justification and was placed in illegal confinement. It is being contended that the allegations/grounds of detention are vague and mere assertions of the detaining authority and no prudent man can make an effective representation against these allegations. Furthermore, it is stated that the allegations whose mention is made in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. In addition, it is stated that the detaining authority has not prepared the grounds of detention by itself whileas, relied the impugned detention order upon dossier only. Also it is being pleaded that the detaining authority has not furnished the material and other connected documents, relied upon, to the detenue to enable him to make an effective representation. Detenue has also not been informed that within what time-frame he can make representation against his detention, which clearly shows violation of the right of the detenue guaranteed in terms of the Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

3. Respondents in their reply affidavit have stated that the grounds of detention are precise, proximate, pertinent and relevant. There is no vagueness or staleness in the grounds coupled with definite indications as to the impact thereof, which has been precisely stated in the grounds of detention. Further it is contended that the grounds of detention give complete account of the activities of the detenue which on the face of it are highly prejudicial for maintenance of security of the State, as such, there was no option left but to order detention of the detenue under Public Safety Act.

4. The main plea of learned counsel for the detenue is that the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations and passing of detention on such grounds is unjustified and unreasonable. All the allegations levelled against the detenue are far from reality and that the detenue is not involved in any unlawful activity, so as to justify his preventive detention.

5. Learned Dy.AG, ex-adverso, submits that the record reveals that there is no vagueness in the grounds of detention. The procedural safeguards prescribed under the provisions of Public Safety Act and the rights guaranteed to the detenue under the Constitution have strictly been followed in the instant case. The detenue has been furnished all the material, as was required, and was also made aware of his right to make representation to the detaining authority against his detention. He further argued that the pleas of the grounds of detention being vague, non-existent, non-relevant, not proximate or invalid, shall not invalidate the detention order as statutorily provided in Section 10-A of the J&K PSA, in terms whereof petitioner has been detained. He finally submits that the impugned detention order, having been passed perfectly in consonance with law, grounds of detention explained / communicated to the detenue, as is disclosed from his receipt of the material, all safeguards complied with the subjective satisfaction of detaining authority, cannot be gone into, to substantiate its own opinion by the Court. It was prayed to uphold the impugned detention order.

6. Heard and consider