Preventive detention orders must demonstrate independent reasoning and specificity in grounds to comply with constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5).

JUDGMENT :

1) Challenge in this petition is thrown to the order No.DMB/PSA/47 of 2022 dated 24.09.2022, issued by District Magistrate, Budgam (for brevity “Detaining Authority”) whereby Shri Mubashir Ahmad (for short “the detenue”) has been placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting prejudicially to the security of UT.

2) The petitioner has contended that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind, inasmuch as the grounds of detention are mere reproduction of the dossier. It has been further contended that the Statutory safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case and that the allegations made against the detenue in the grounds of detention are vague and cryptic.

3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have disputed the averments made in the petition and stated that they have followed the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act. It is contended that the detenue has been detained only after following due procedure; that the grounds of detention were read over to the detenue; that there has been proper application of mind while passing the impugned order of detention and that the detenue has been provided all the material which has been relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the detention order. 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 detention record.

5) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while throwing challenge to the impugned order, projected various grounds but the main grounds that have prevailed during the course of arguments are:

(I) That the grounds of detention are verbatim copy of the dossier, which shows that the detaining authority has not applied its mind while framing the grounds of detention;

(I) That the grounds of detention are vague and cryptic, which prevented the petitioner from making an effective representation against his detention.

6) In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the respondents has made an attempt to justify the passing of the order impugned by contending that the detenue is a habitual criminal, inasmuch he is involved in various criminal acts and, as such, the Detaining Authority was well within its jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of detention as there was every likelihood of the detenue indulging in similar activities. It has been further contended that all the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority were, provided to the detenue and in token of having received the same, the detenue has signed the receipt. It is also urged that the contents of the documents were read over and explained to the detenue in the language understood by him.

7) While going through the detention records, the first ground projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner gets fortified from the material on record. The grounds of detention appear to be replica of the dossier with interplay of some words here and there. This exhibits non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority. In the process, the deriving of subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority has become a causality. While formulating the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has to apply its own mind. It cannot simply reiterate whatever is written in the police dossier. In my aforesaid view, I am supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Singh and ors vs. State of J&K (AIR 1985 SC 764).

8) The grounds of detention and the dossier, if in similar language, go on to show that there has been non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. The similarity of contents of grounds of detention and police dossier in the instant case clearly exhibits mechanical functioning of the detaining authority, thereby making the impugned order of detention unsustainable in law.

9) Next it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the grounds of detention are vague, inasmuch as