IMPORTANT POINT
The right to be informed of the grounds of detention in a language understood by the detenue is a fundamental constitutional right, and failure to comply with this requirement, along with the lack of fresh material for detention, invalidates the detention order.

JUDGMENT :

MOHD. AKRAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. District Magistrate, Ramban (hereinafter called 'Detaining Authority') in exercise of powers under section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, passed the detention Order No. 14/PSA of 2022, dated 04.06.2022 (for short 'impugned order'), in terms whereof the detenue namely Tanveer Ahmed @ Jimmy S/o Bashir Ahmed R/o Near Bus Stand Banihal, Tehsil Banihal District Ramban (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 read with Section 13(1) of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.

3. The case set up by the petitioner, in the petition, is that detenu was earlier detained in the year, 2019 vide detention Order No. DMR/PSA of 2019/271-76, dated 10.08.2019. The said detention was challenged before the Court by way of petition bearing WP (Crl) No. 89/2019 titled Tanveer Ahmed v. UT of J&K & Ors. However, the said detention order was revoked by the Government vide Govt. Order No. Home/PB- V/973 of 2020, dated 12.04.2020. Another detention order bearing Order No. DMR/PSA of 1653-58, dated 09.07.2021 was issued by the respondent no. 2, whereby the petitioner was once again detained under PSA on false and baseless allegations. The petitioner challenged the said detention order by way of petition WP (Crl) No. 16/2021 titled Tanveer Ahmed v. UT of J&K & Ors. The Court upon consideration of the matter vide order dated 01.04.2022 quashed the detention order dated 09.07.2021.

4. It is further pleaded in the petition that now another impugned detention order bearing No. 14/PSA of 2022, dated 04.06.2022 came to be issued by the same detaining authority, whereby the petitioner has been detained for third time on the same grounds and the third detention order is merely a verbatim copy of earlier detention orders. It is also being stated that 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 without there being any fresh material on record, the respondents have booked the petitioner under PSA. It is being pleaded in the petition that the detaining authority-respondent No. 2 has not attributed any specific allegation against the detenue.

5. 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 detenue is not an English literate person and he understands only Urdu/Kashmiri language but the order of detention is in English and it is not possible for him to understand such a hyper technical language. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the detenue 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.

6. Respondents in their counter 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 anti-national/anti-social activities and create law and order problem by organizing strikes and anti-national rallies in the Banihal area of District Ramban with the association of other likeminded people of the area. It is also being stated that the detenue being a habitual and hardcore criminal has been rightly detained under the Public Safety Act by the competent authority.

7. Heard learned counsel for both the sides at length and considered the record.

8. 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