IMPORTANT POINT
The failure to provide a detenue with all materials relied upon for a detention order and to inform him of his right to appeal to the detaining authority constitutes a violation of constitutional rights, rendering the detention order invalid.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

1. By the instant petition, quashment of Order No. DMB/PSA/17 of 2022, dated 02.06.2022, issued by District Magistrate, Budgam (for brevity “Detaining Authority”) is sought. In terms of the aforesaid order, Shi Mohammad Irfan Bhat son of Mohammad Maqbool Bhat resident of Takiya Wagoora Kreeri Baramulla (for short “detenu”) has been placed under preventive detention and lodged in Kot Bhalwal Jail, Jammu.

2. The petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind, in asmuch as the grounds of detention are mere reproduction of the dossier. It has been further contended that the Statutory procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case as whole of the material that formed basis of the grounds of detention and the consequent order of detention has not been provided to the detenue and that there has been total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order.

3. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have disputed the averments made in the petition and insisted that the activities of detenue are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention were handed over to the detenue and same were read over and explained to him. It has been urged that the grounds urged by the petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and without any merit. The respondents have produced the detention records in order to buttress the contentions raised in the counter affidavit.

4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the impugned order, projected various grounds but his main thrust during the course of arguments was on the following grounds:

(I) That the detenue's right of making an effective representation against his detention has been violated as whole of the material, on the basis of which the grounds of detention have been formulated, has not been supplied to him.

(II) That the petitioner was not informed about his right to make a representation against the order of detention before the detaining authority.

(III) That the grounds of detention are verbatim copy of the dossier, which shows that the detaining authority has not applied its mind while formulating the grounds of detention which is a pre-requisite for passing an order of detention.

6. The first ground projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detenue has been disabled from making an effective representation against the order of detention as the material, which formed base of the grounds of detention and the consequent order of detention, has not been furnished to him, appears to have substance. A perusal of the detention record reveals that the petitioner has been provided copy of detention order (01 leaf), notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (03 leaves), dossier of detention (03 leaves), copies of FIR, statements of witnesses and other related documents (04 leaves) in total (12) leaves.

7. If we have a look at the grounds of detention, it bears reference to a video alleged to have been uploaded by the detenue on his YouTube channel whereby the detune is alleged to have shamed the activities of slain singer and artist Amreena Bhat. It is also alleged in the grounds of detention that the detenue is uploading anti social videos on his YouTube channel. It was incumbent upon respondents to furnish soft copies of these video clips but the same has not been done by the respondents.

8. The contention of the petitioner that whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority, while framing the grounds of detention has not been supplied to him, appears to be well-founded. Rather the record produced by the respondents corroborates the fact that whole of the material relied upon by the detaining