Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, J
Nizam Ud Din Najar – Appellant
Versus
Ut of J&K – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has challenged detention order bearing No.15/DMP/PSA/24 dated 04.04.2024, passed by District Magistrate, Pulwama- respondent No.2, whereby Nizam-ud-Din Najar (“the detenue”), has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The order is, purportedly, passed by the detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.
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 and cryptic in nature and the same are based on stale incidents which have no proximate and live link with the detention order. 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 i
Preventive detention orders must provide specific grounds for effective representation; similarity in language does not imply non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
Preventive detention orders must have a clear nexus with the alleged activities of the detenue, and the detaining authority must demonstrate application of mind in framing the grounds.
Preventive detention orders must demonstrate independent reasoning and specificity in grounds to comply with constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5).
Preventive detention orders must provide all relevant material to the detenue for effective representation; failure to do so renders the order illegal.
The detention order must comply with constitutional safeguards, including the provision of necessary material for an effective representation and cannot be based on stale incidents.
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 the detenue with necessary material for representation renders a preventive detention order illegal and violates constitutional rights.
Non-consideration of a representation against preventive detention 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
