The judgment establishes the principle that the detention order must strictly comply with procedural requirements, and the detenue's right to understand the grounds of detention and make a meaningful representation is fundamental.

JUDGMENT :

1. District Magistrate, Rajouri (hereinafter called ‘Detaining Authority’) in exercise of powers under Section 8(1)(a)(i) read with clause(ii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short, ‘Act of 1978’), passed the detention Order No. DMR/INDEX/24 of 2023 Dated 14.09.2023 (for short ‘impugned order’), in terms whereof the detenue namely Nazarat Hussain Shah S/O Zabir Shah R/O Plangarh Tehsil Thanamandi, District Rajouri (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 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

3. It is being pleaded in the petition that the detaining authority-respondent No.2 has not attributed any specific allegation against the detenue. Furthermore, it is stated that the detenue has been incapacitated in filing a representation as the grounds of detention are not in a language which could be understood by the detenue. It is also being stated that the neither the petitioner is threat to the public order nor he has committed any such crime which has disturbed the society at large. It is also being stated that the detenue is not an English literate person and understands only Urdu language but the order of detention is in English and it is not possible for him to understand such a hyper technical language; 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.

4. Respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the detenue was ordered to be detained for maintenance of ‘public order’ and had he been let free there would have been every likelihood of his 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; that the petitioner falls under the category of Section 8 of the Public Safety Act, being a threat to the public order, peace and stability in the society. 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 Rajouri.

5. Heard learned counsel for both the sides at length, perused and considered the record.

6. 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, Rajouri, 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 Rajouri. 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.

7. In rebuttal, learned GA 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 as well as government, against his detention.

8. Personal liberty is one of the most cherished freedo