Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, J
Tawseef Ahmad Parray – Appellant
Versus
Government of J And K And Ors (Home Department) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to detention order (Para 1) |
| 2. grounds of detention vague (Para 2) |
| 3. non-supply of material (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 4. material not supplied (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. petition allowed (Para 14 , 15) |
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 safegu
The failure to provide the detenue with necessary material for representation renders a preventive detention order illegal and violates constitutional rights.
Preventive detention orders must comply with constitutional safeguards, including providing the detenue with all relevant materials to ensure the right to make an effective representation.
Vague grounds of preventive detention violate Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution, undermining the legality of the detention order.
The failure to supply material necessary for making an effective representation against preventive detention violates constitutional rights under Article 22(5), rendering the detention order illegal.
Vagueness in grounds of preventive detention violates constitutional rights and undermines the legality of the detention order.
Preventive detention orders must provide sufficient grounds and comply with procedural safeguards; failure to do so can lead to quashment.
Preventive detention orders can be issued based on sufficient grounds, and prior revocation does not preclude new orders if circumstances warrant.
The failure to provide essential documents to a detenue violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution, rendering the detention order illegal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
