The detaining authority must apply its mind to draw subjective satisfaction to detain the petitioner, and the detenue has the right to make an effective and meaningful representation against the detention order.

JUDGMENT :

1. Divisional Commissioner Jammu (hereinafter called ‘Detaining Authority’) in exercise of powers vested in him as Secretary to Government of J&K, under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1988 r/w SRO 247 of 1998 dated 27.07.1998, passed Detention Order No. PITNDPS 45 of 2023 dated 27.09.2023 (for short ‘impugned order’), in terms whereof the petitioner Sheelo Devi @ Sheelo W/O Ram Paul, R/O Chak Drab Khan Tehsil & District Kathua (for short ‘detenue’) has been detained.

2. The impugned detention order has been challenged through the medium of the instant petition, being in breach of the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is being pleaded in the petition that the detention order so passed against the petitioner was not addressed to detenue which shows the callousness and non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority-respondent No.2; that the petitioner has not committed any offence nor she is involved in the commission of any offence under the NDPS Act which may pose a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people, but the respondents without the application of mind and without considering the material on record had issued and passed the impugned detention order which is illegal, unjustified, unwarranted under law and as such the same is liable to be quashed; that the order of detention and the connected documents annexed with the petition clearly show violation of right of the detenue guaranteed in terms of the Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

3. Respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the detenue was ordered to be detained for maintenance of ‘public order’ and had she been let free there would have been every likelihood of her re-indulging in criminal activities. It is being stated that the power of preventive detention is different from punishment; preventive detention aimed at stopping the illegal activities of an individual which otherwise under common law, both criminal/civil cannot be stopped and the said individual creates a havoc in the society which leads to public disorder, peace, stability; that the petitioner falls under the category of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance in terms of Section 3 of the Act of 1998, which poses a serious threat to the health and welfare of the young generation of the country and even to the economy and security of the Union Territory of J&K. It is also being stated that the petitioner is involved in numerous criminal activities, was not likely to desist from those activities which were prejudicial to the maintenance of peace and public order in District Kathua.

4. Learned counsel for the detenue while being heard, makes reference to the grounds of the detention and states that on a cursory look on the same it is manifest that same are vague. It is also submitted that the Detaining Authority on the basis of dossier submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police Kathua, without application of mind and without evaluating the allegations alleged against the detenue in the said dossier, copy of which was not even provided to the detenue, proceeded to pass impugned detention order whereby the detenue has been detained and directed to be lodged at District Jail Kathua. In addition, learned counsel submitted that the allegations levelled against the detenue are totally vague as nothing specific has been stated in the grounds of detention. It has also been urged that the petitioner is a diabetic patient and she has also suffered heart attack and in view of her health, detention of petitioner be quashed.

5. Learned AAG, 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 the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act and the rights guaranteed to the detenue under t