The main legal point established in the judgment is that preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 is justified based on the detenue's past conduct and likelihood to engage in prejudicial activities, and the court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the detaining authority when the grounds of detention are precise, pertinent, and proximate.

JUDGMENT :

1. Challenge in this petition has been thrown to a detention order No.07/DMB/PSA of 2022 dated 07.04.2022, passed by District Magistrate Bandipora-respondent No.2, vide which son of the petitioner namely Zahoor Ahmad Dar (the ‘detenue’) has been ordered to be detained and lodged in Central Jail, Kotbalwal, Jammu.

2. The petitioner has questioned the impugned detention order primarily on the ground that since detenue in all the FIRs mentioned in the impugned order has either been admitted to bail or acquitted, and the last alleged activity attributed to the detenue dates back to the year 2016, therefore, there is no proximity of detention of the detenue with the alleged apprehension of the respondents. According to the petitioner, the allegations attributed to the detenue in the grounds of detention are fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal actions.

3. Besides, the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order on the conventional grounds that the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and no prudent man could make effective representation against such allegations; that the very basis of satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority being vague, the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind; that the grounds of detention is a replica of the police dossier; that relevant material, including copy of dossier, FIRs, statements of witnesses, seizure memo, arrest memos, bail orders, detention papers of PSA, order dated 08.05.2017, were not furnished to the detenue, so as to enable him to make an effective representation due to which constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India are infringed; that neither translated script of the detention order in Kashmiri or Urdu language was furnished to the detenue nor grounds of detention were read over and explained to the detenue in the language which he understands, so that he could make an effective representation; that detenue was neither provided an opportunity of making representation post-execution, nor he was informed of his right to make representation against the detention order and that representation filed by him was not accorded any consideration.

4. Countervailing the stand taken by the petitioner, the respondent-detaining authority in its counter affidavit is affront with the contention that no legal, fundamental or statutory right of the detenue has been infringed in the present case, as respondents have complied with all the statutory and constitutional provisions and followed the requisite formalities before issuance of the impugned detention order against the detenue.

5. It is the contention of the respondents that, by virtue of impugned order, detenue came to be detained under the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (‘PSA’, for short), after due compliance of the statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees and keeping in mind the object of lawful preventive detention, which is not punitive but preventive in nature. Grounds of detention, order of detention and entire material relied upon by the detaining authority was furnished to the detenue within the statutory period provided under Section 13 of PSA. In compliance to the order passed by the detaining authority, the warrant came to be executed by the concerned police on 11.04.2022 by virtue of which detenue was handed over to the Assistant Superintendent Central Jail Jammu Kotbalwal for lodgement. According to the respondents, the contents of the detention order/warrant as also the grounds of detention were explained to the detenue in the language fully understood by him and in lieu whereof the detenue subscribed his signature on the execution order. It is also contended that detenue was well informed about his right to make representation to the detaining authority or to the Government against his detention, however, he did not chose to do so. It is further contention of the respondents that detention case