IMPORTANT POINT
The right to be informed of the grounds of detention and to access all materials relevant to that detention is fundamental under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, and any failure to comply with these requirements renders the detention order illegal.

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 ('PSA' shortly), passed the detention Order No. 26/PSA of 2022, dated 18.10.2022 (for short 'impugned order'), in terms whereof the petitioner namely Mohammad Usama Bali S/o Rehmatullah Bali R/o Mundkhal Pogal, Tehsil Pogal Paristan (Ukhral), District Ramban (for short 'detenue'), has been detained.

2. The impugned detention order has been challenged through the medium of the instant petition, allegedly having been passed in breach of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India read with Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.

3. It is being pleaded in the petition that the detaining authority-Respondent No. 2 has not attributed any specific allegation against the detenue; that the Detaining Authority has deliberately and intentionally preferred not to inform the petitioner that he can make representation to the Detaining Authority also and if the Detaining Authority would have provided all the materials and informed the petitioner about the right to make a representation before the Detaining Authority, the petitioner would have been in a position to make an effective representation and would have cleared all the suspicions/speculations raised against the petitioner by the sponsoring authority and in view of this fact that Detaining Authority did not inform the petitioner about making the representation before the Detaining Authority, it has vitiated the detention of the petitioner as such, the order of detention and the connected documents annexed with the petition clearly show violation of right of the detenue guaranteed in terms of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

4. Respondents in their counter affidavits 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 criminal activities; that the power of preventive detention is different from punishment as the preventive detention is aimed at stopping the illegal activities of an individual, which, otherwise, under common law both criminal/civil cannot be stopped and the said individual would have created a havoc in the society which leads to public disorder, disturbing peace, stability and in certain cases also raises alarm bells regarding the National Unity and Integrity; that petitioner's activities, were threat to the public order, peace and stability in the society. It is also being stated that the petitioner is involved in numerous criminal activities, was not likely to desist from his criminal activities, which were prejudicial to the maintenance of peace and public order in District Ramban.

5. Learned counsel for the detenue, while being heard, makes reference to the grounds of the detention, would argue 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 by Senior Superintendent of Police, Ramban, without application of mind and without evaluating the allegations alleged against the detenue in the said dossier, copy of which was not even provided to the detenue, proceeded to pass impugned detention order whereby the detenue has been detained and directed to be lodged at Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. In addition, learned counsel submitted that the allegations levelled against the detenue are totally vague as nothing specific has been stated in the grounds of detention. He further argued that detenue is a student of B.Sc. Part-II at Govt. Amar Singh College Srinagar and was detained from Srinagar, on baseless and unfounded allegations of using social networking sites for anti-national activities without specifying those activities.

6. In rebuttal, learned Sr. AAG submits that the record reveals that there is no vagu