HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
SINDHU SHARMA, J
SUNIL KUMAR @GOKUL TH SANDEEP KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
UT OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT JAMMU AND OTHERS – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The detenu has assailed the Order of Detention No.PSA 22 of 2024 dated 06.05.2024 issued by the District Magistrate, Jammu, placing him under detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The said order of detention has been assailed by the detenu through his brother-Sandeep Kumar.
2. The detenu is aggrieved of the order of detention on the grounds that; (i) the same has been passed casually and mechanically without any application of mind and there were no sufficient grounds recorded by the Detaining Authority to justify that the alleged activities of the detenu were threat to public order, (ii) the grounds of detention are vague, uncertain and ambiguous as the Detaining Authority, as per the grounds of detention, has detained him for his activities for the purpose of preventing and combating activities prejudicial to the security of the State, maintenance of public safety and to provide protection to the society, (iii) the detenu has not been provided all the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority while passing the order of detention which has resulted in infraction of constitutional and statuto
Manju Ramesh Nahar vs. Union of India and others
Preventive detention orders must be executed promptly and based on clear grounds; failure to do so renders the order invalid.
Preventive detention orders must disclose compelling reasons, especially when the individual is already in custody, or they become unsustainable under law.
Preventive detention requires specific grounds and independent application of mind by the detaining authority; mere reproduction of police dossiers is insufficient.
Preventive detention requires a clear live link between recent activities and the grounds for detention; mere reliance on past actions is insufficient.
Preventive detention orders must demonstrate awareness of the detenue's custody status and cannot conflate grounds of public order and security of the State; failure to do so invalidates the order.
The detenue's right to make an effective representation against preventive detention is guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Failure to supply the material forming the basis o....
Preventive detention requires acts that threaten public order to justify detention; unexplained delays in issuing detention orders render them invalid.
The necessity to place all material, including orders of granting bail, before the detaining authority to enable them to derive subjective satisfaction for the detention.
Preventive detention requires a clear nexus to public order disruption, which was not met in this case, leading to the quashing of the detention order.
The detention order must be based on compelling reasons, and the detaining authority must supply all material forming the basis of the detention to enable effective representation. Failure to do so r....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.