The failure to provide the detenue with necessary material for representation renders a preventive detention order illegal and violates constitutional rights.

JUDGMENT :

1) The petitioner has challenged detention order No.36/DMB/PSA/2023 dated 15.05.2023, issued by District Magistrate, Baramulla (for brevity “detaining authority”). In terms of the aforesaid order, Shri Tawseef Ahmad Parray @ Gasha (for short “detenue”) has been placed under preventive detention and lodged in Central Jail, Kotbhalwal, Jammu, 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 impugned order has been issued without application of mind 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 safeguards provided under law 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 been further contended that the representation filed by the detenue against his detention has not been considered.

3) The respondents have resisted the petition by filing reply affidavit, wherein they have contended 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 was read over and explained to him 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. 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 whole of the material, 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.

6) So far as the first ground of challenge is concerned, a perusal of the detention record produced by learned counsel for the respondents reveals that the material is stated to have been received by the petitioner on 18.05.2023. Report of the Executing Officer in this regard forms part of the detention record, a perusal whereof reveals that it bears the signature of the petitioner and according to it, copy of detention order (01 leaf), notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (02 leaves), dossier of detention (Nil) and other documents (Nil), total 04 leaves, have been supplied to him.

7) It is clear from the execution report, which forms part of the detention record, that copy of the police dossier has not been supplied to the detenue. Apart from this, the grounds of detention bear reference to proceedings under Section 107 and 151 of Cr. P. C against the detenue but the copies of relevant documents pertaining to these proceedings have also not been provided to the detenue. This is clear from the Report of the Executing Officer, which forms part of the deten