Preventive detention must comply with Article 22(5) of the Constitution, requiring clear communication of grounds and supporting material to the detenue for effective representation; failure to do so renders detention illegal.

JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of the instant petition, the order of detention bearing No. 46/DMK/PSA/2022 dated 25.06.2022 (for short ‘impugned order’) passed by District Magistrate Kulgam- respondent No. 2 (for short ‘Detaining authority’) has been challenged, by virtue of which the petitioner (for short ‘the detenue’) has been ordered to be detained under the provisions of Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The case of the petitioner is that the detenue was arrested in the year 2020 and was implicated in cases FIR No.73/2020 and FIR No. 113/2019 registered at Police Station Kulgam for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307 IPC, 506 RPC, 7/27 A. Act, 13, 16, 20, 398, 39 UAP Act, but was admitted to bail. The detenue was thereafter, called to police station Kulgam in the month of June 2022 and was detained illegally and while being in the custody, he was shifted to Central Jail Jammu to be detained under the provisions of Public Safety Act in terms of the impugned order, which is challenged through the medium of the instant petition.

3. The detenue has challenged the impugned order of detention inter alia on the grounds that the allegations leveled in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue; that the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and no prudent man can make a representation against such allegation and passing of detention order on such grounds is unjustified and unreasonable; that no material, which has been relied upon by the Detaining Authority, has been furnished to the detenue thereby depriving him of his valuable right of making effective representation against preventive detention and the order of detention has been passed on stale grounds; that the last alleged activity attributed to the detenue, as per the grounds of detention, has taken place in the year 2020 and thereafter no fresh activity has been attributed to the detenue; that post detention, the detenue has submitted a representation before the respondents, however, same was neither considered nor the material as requested was furnished to the detenue.

4. Pursuant to the notice, Counter Affidavit has been filed, perusal of which reveals that the detenue has been detained pursuant to the order of detention passed by the Detaining authority and while doing so, all the procedural safeguards enshrined under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of the Act, have been fully complied with by the respondents.; that all the requisite documents have been supplied to the detenue so as to enable him to make an effective representation to the Detaining Authority and to the Government; that the order of detention was executed and the detenue was taken into preventive custody after the contents of the detention order/warrant and the grounds of detention were read over and explained to him in the language which he fully understood and he was also informed of his right to make representation to the Detaining Authority. It is further pleaded that the Detaining Authority found it necessary to detain the detenue under the Act, to prevent him from causing activities to disturb public order.

5. The main plea of learned counsel for the detenue is that the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations and passing of detention on such grounds is unjustified and unreasonable. All the allegations levelled against the detenue are far from reality and that the detenue is not involved in any unlawful activity, so as to justify his preventive detention.

6. Learned Dy.AG, 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 Public Safety Act and the rights gua