The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of preventive detention to prevent future acts prejudicial to public order, emphasizing that the purpose of detention is not punitive but preventive.

JUDGMENT :

1. The challenge in this petition pertains to detention order No. PITNDPS 36 of 2023, dated 14.09.2023, issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu. The detenu-Vikram Singh, S/o Hoshiyar Singh, R/o Lehar Sungal, Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu, was detained by the Detaining Authority on the ground that he is engaged in repeated illicit trafficking of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances which poses a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people of Union Territory of J&K at large and with a view to prevent him from committing any act under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS) Act, the detenu was detained under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, vide order dated 14.09.2023. This order of detention has been assailed by the detenu through his wife-Nekha Devi.

2. The order of detention has been assailed by the detenu on the grounds that; (i) the order of detention has been passed without any application of mind on a mere apprehension of a serious threat to the health and welfare of people and the Detaining Authority has not arrived at any subjective satisfaction before passing the order of detention; (ii) the detenu was not informed about his right to make a representation against the detention order which is in violation of his right guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution; (iii) the grounds of detention have not been read over and explained to the detenu in the language he understands; (iv) the order of detention has been passed without any application of mind on irrelative and vague grounds; (v) all the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority has not been provided to the detenu; (vi) the order of detention is punitive in nature and grounds of detention are vague and stale, thus, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is vitiated.

3. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit and produced the record of detention.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is submitted that the detenu has been detained under the PITNDPS Act, 1988, after the Detaining Authority carefully examined the dossier submitted by the SSP, Jammu and arrived at a subjective satisfaction regarding the detention of the detenu. The detenu was undeterred by the ordinary law, as such, he was placed under the preventive detention in order to prevent him from committing any acts of illicit trafficking of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. It is further submitted that none of the constitutional and statutory rights of the detenu have been infringed or violated by the answering respondents. The detenu was supplied with all the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority while passing the order of detention and the same read over and explained to him in the language he understands.

5. The detenu was repeatedly indulging in illicit trafficking of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and a consequence thereof the ordinary law was unable to prevent him from committing these acts, which has resulted in the Detaining Authority arriving at its subjective satisfaction that the detenu poses a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people, as such, he was detained under the preventive law. It is further submitted that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority cannot be subjected to judicial review by this Court. All the procedural safeguards and constitutional guarantees were duly complied with by the Detaining Authority. The grounds of detention, order of detention as well as entire material relied upon by the Detaining Authority has been provided to the detenu and he was also informed of his right to make a representation against the order of detention.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record also.

7. The Detaining Authority, in the grounds of detention, has stated that the detenu is an active drug peddler in