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 detention unsustainable in law.

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 detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner. It has also been contended that the representation of the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been considered.

3. Upon being put to notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their reply affidavit, wherein they have disputed the averments made in the petition and insisted that the activities of detenue are highly prejudicial to the security of the State. It is pleaded that whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority has been furnished to the detenue and the same were read over and explained to him; that the grounds urged by the petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and without any merit and that the detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention but despite that he has not chosen to file any representation. It is further contented in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the impugned order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.

4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the impugned order, projected various grounds but his main thrust during the course of arguments was on the following grounds:

(I) That the detenue’s right of making an effective representation against his detention has been violated as whole of the material, on the basis of which the grounds of detention have been formulated, has not been supplied to him.

(II) That although a representation was submitted against the detention by the detenue through his brother before the respondents yet the same was not considered rendering the detention order unsustainable in law.

6. The first ground projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detenue has been disabled from making an effective representation against the order of detention as whole of the material, which formed basis of the grounds of detention and the consequent order of detention, has not been furnished to him, appears to have substance. A perusal of the detention record reveals that the petitioner has been provided copies of detention order (01 leaf), notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (04 leaves), dossier of detention (03), copies of FIR, statements of witnesses and other relevant documents (07 leaves), (total 16 leaves). If we have a look at the grounds of detention, it bears reference to as many as seven FIRs viz. FIR Nos. 23/2013, 13/2016, 28/2016, 31/2016, 34/2016, 42/20