Preventive detention orders must be executed promptly and based on clear grounds; failure to do so renders the order invalid.

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 statutory safeguards as provided to him, (iv) the grounds of detention are replica of dossier and there is no application of mind by the Detaining Authority and (v) there is a delay in executing the order of detention which has resulted in the detention being unsustainable.

3. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit and detention record has also been produced. It is submitted that the detenu is a hardcore criminal who poses grave threat to the peace and harmony in the society. The detenu is a history sheeter, habitual of indulging in acts of violence and has spread a reign of terror amongst the people of the area. The anti-social activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of peace. The Detaining Authority after arriving at its subjective satisfaction place the detenu in detention. All these statutory requirement and constitutional guarantee have been fulfilled and complied with by the Detaining Authority. The impugned order is legal and valid, therefore, the grounds taken in the petition are misconceived and unsustainable being without any merit.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record also.

5. The impugned order of detention has been assailed on number of grounds but learned counsel for the petitioner emphasizes on two grounds; (i) that there is delay in execution of detention order which has rendered the detention unsustainable and (ii) the Detaining Authority has passed the order of detention on the premise that the detenu's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, peace and security of the State. All the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority while passing the order of detention has not been provided to the detenu. The first ground relied upon by the petitioner is that there is delay in execution of the order of detention which has rendered the detention unsustainable in law.

6. Perusal of the record reveals that the detention order dated 06.05.2024 was executed by the respondents on 27.06.2024. There is, thus, an inordinate and unexplained delay of almost two months in executing the order of detention. As per the execution report, detention order has been executed on 27.06.2024 but there is no explanation put forth by the Executing Officer regarding the difficulty faced in execution of the same. Preventive detention is to be resorted to only in case there is urgent need to detain a person to prevent him from indulging in any activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. There is unexplained delay in executing the order which has rendered the same unsustainable.

7. In 'Manju Ramesh Nahar vs. Union of India and others’ reported as (1999) 4 SCC 116 , it was held as under :-

13. Except making a vague allegation that the appellant was absconding and was appreh