Detention orders must comply with Article 22(5) of the Constitution, ensuring supply of grounds and consideration of representation; vagueness in grounds renders detention illegal.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

1. By the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the veracity and legality of the detention Order No. 48/DMA/PSA/DET/2021, dated 25.10.2021, issued by District Magistrate, Anantnag (for brevity "detaining authority"). In terms of the aforesaid order, Abid Hussain Ganie Son of Abdul Gani Ganie Resident of Ahang Matipora District Anantnag (for short "detenue") has been placed under preventive detention and lodged in Central Jail, Jammu (Kotbhalwal), in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State.

2. The petitioner has contended that the detaining authority has issued the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind, inasmuch as the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and that the same have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent on which no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material which formed basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner. It has also been contended that the representation of the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been considered.

3. Upon being put to notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their reply affidavit, wherein they have disputed the averments made in the petition and insisted that the activities of detenue are highly prejudicial to the security of the State. It is pleaded that whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority has been furnished to the detenue and the same were read over and explained to him; that the grounds urged by the petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and without any merit and that the detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention but despite that he has not chosen to file any representation. It is further contented in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the impugned order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.

4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the 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 has not been provided the relevant material and that non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order, which prevented him from making an effective representation against his detention.

(II) That the grounds of detention are vague and cryptic, which prevented him from making an effective representation against his detention.

(III) That although a representation was submitted against the detention by the detenue through his father before the respondents yet the same was not considered rendering the detention order unsustainable in law.

6. The first ground projected by the petitioner is regarding non-supply of relevant material and non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order,