The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the detaining authority to apply independent mind and comply with constitutional guarantees when issuing a detention order under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner in the instant petition has called in question order of detention no. 42/PSA of 2023 dated 02.05.2023 (for short “the impugned order”) passed by the respondent 2 herein under and in terms of the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short “the Act of 1978”).

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned detention order on the following grounds:-

A. Because the order of detention is unconstitutional, illegal and bad in law. The order of the detention has been passed in breach of the mandate of law as declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and by this Hon’ble Court.

B. Because the detaining authority has not followed the Constitutional and statutory procedural safeguards. The detaining authority has not followed the procedural mandate as provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

C. Because the District Magistrate detaining authority has not applied his mind as there is no compelling reasons and cogent material and details available before the detaining authority on the basis of which respondent No. 2 has made his subjective satisfaction and passed the detention order, without any valid reasons and facts as such there is complete non application of mind.

D. That the detaining authority has also not applied his mind while passing the detention order as in the grounds of detention it is shown that detenue is involved in anti-national and anti-social state activities prejudicial to the security and peaceful atmosphere but has been detained for maintenance of Public Order which is contradictory as such the order being passed without application of mind is liable to be quashed.

E. Because the grounds of detention are vague stale and no specific incident or dates or places are mentioned as such are vague and no subjective satisfaction could be achieved by the detaining authority on such grounds, there are no specific details and material about the involvement of the detenue in the activities alleged in the grounds and more importantly the events mentioned in the ground are without any material or details and is passed on the basis of apprehensions only as such there was no compelling reason to detain the detenue under preventive law since the ordinary law of the land has not been invoked ever against the detenue which may has shown that ordinary law was not sufficient to combat the activities of the detenue. On this ground also the impugned order and the grounds are liable to be quashed and set aside.

F. Because in the impugned detention order the detaining authority in the grounds of detention has urged that detenue is linked with the terrorist outfit PAK based and same has compelled the detaining authority to detain the detenue under the preventive law in the interest of security of UT, however while passing the detention order the detaining authority has not shown any concrete material or link of the detenue with any terrorist organization or any act of terror and likewise the details of different SIM cards used by the detenue of the social media apps (Accounts/Posts) and to who detenue has extended threats in the locality as alleged in grounds of detention as such the detention order is just based on concocted story and apprehension as such the impugned detention order needs to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court.

G. Because the respondent has detained the petitioner on the basis of the concocted story with no material on record regarding the involvement of the petitioner in anti national and anti social activities as alleged by the respondent in the detention order, that right to liberty is most valuable right of the person and such right cannot be deprived on the basis of mere assumptions by the respondent state without having any proof on record as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Mohammad Yousaf Rather Vs. State of J&K AIR 1979, 1925.

H. Because the detenue was studying MBBS Course at Pakistan from 2017-2019 and on his return to the UT a