SANJAY DHAR
Bilal Ahmad Hastiwala – Appellant
Versus
UT of J&K – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY DHAR, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged detention Order No. 07-DMG-PSA-2022 dated 12.4.2022, issued by District Magistrate, Ganderbal-respondent No. 2 (for brevity “detaining authority”). In terms of the aforesaid order, Bilal Ahmad Hastiwala (for short “the detenue”) has been placed under preventive detention and lodged in Central Jail, Jammu (Kotbhalwal), in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the security of the country, particularly the UT of J&K.
2. The petitioner has contended that the detaining authority has issued the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind as the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and that the same have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent on which no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material which formed basis of the impugned deten
Rahmatullah vs. State of Bihar and Others
Ram Krishan Bhardwaj vs. State of Delhi
Sophia Ghulam Mohd. Bham vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Failure to supply all material forming the basis of the grounds of detention and non-consideration of the detenue's representation violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, rendering the d....
Preventive detention orders must comply with constitutional safeguards, including providing all material for effective representation and considering such representations.
Detention orders must comply with Article 22(5) of the Constitution, ensuring supply of grounds and consideration of representation; vagueness in grounds renders detention illegal.
The failure to provide necessary materials for representation and non-consideration of the representation violates constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5), rendering the detention order illegal....
The failure to supply material necessary for making an effective representation against preventive detention violates constitutional rights under Article 22(5), rendering the detention order illegal.
The failure to supply necessary material for making an effective representation against a detention order violates constitutional rights, rendering the order illegal.
The failure to provide necessary material for effective representation against preventive detention violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution, rendering the detention order illegal.
Failure to furnish all material forming the basis of preventive detention and non-consideration of the detenue's representation against the detention amount to violations of constitutional safeguards....
The failure to provide essential documents to a detenue violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution, rendering the detention order illegal.
The failure to supply the material on which the detention is based renders the detention order illegal and unsustainable, violating the detenue's constitutional right guaranteed under Article 22(5) o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.