Procedural safeguards in preventive detention must be strictly followed; failure to provide documents and delays in representation invalidate detention orders.

JUDGEMENT

1) The petitioner through his father has filed the present petition for quashing of Order No. DMS/PSA/124/2022, dated 24.09.2022 issued by the respondent no. 2, by virtue of which, the petitioner has been ordered to be detained under Section (8) of the J & K Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short ‘the PSA’).

2) It is stated that the petitioner was earlier detained under preventive detention vide Order dated 23.08.2021, and after the expiry of one year, the petitioner was brought to the local Police Station and booked under 107, 151 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the petitioner was ordered to be detained by virtue of the order impugned as mentioned above.

3) The petitioner has impugned the order of detention on the following grounds:

(I) That the respondent no. 2 has not furnished the material and the other connected documents i.e. dossier and the communication received from Superintendent of Police Anantnag, relied upon by him for passing the order of detention.

(II) That the petitioner had submitted a detailed representation through his father but the same was not decided by the detaining authority.

(III) That the details given in the grounds of detention are mere assertions, which cannot justify the detention of the petitioner.

(IV) That the petitioner was not informed that within what time he can make a representation to the detaining authority or to the Government which is in violation of the rights of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 13 of Public Safety Act.

4) Reply stands filed by the respondents, wherein it is stated that taking into consideration the activities of the petitioner, he was ordered to be detained by virtue of Order dated 24.09.2022, issued by the respondent no. 2, and all the Statutory and Constitutional requirements have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority. The grounds of detention, order of detention, as well as entire material relied upon by the detaining authority came to be furnished to the detenue well within the statutory period provided under Section 13 of the Act. The warrant was executed by Executing Officer namely ASI Gh Hussain of Police Station M. R. Gunj, and the petitioner was handed over to Superintendent Central Jail Jammu Kotebhalwal, for lodgement. It is further stated that the contents of the detention order/warrant and the grounds of detention were read over and explained to the detenue in the language which he fully understood, and the petitioner had subscribed his signature upon the execution report/receipt of grounds of detention in acknowledgement thereof, and the petitioner was also informed about his right of making a representation to the detaining authority as well as the Government. It is further averred that the case of the petitioner was referred to Advisory Board for its opinion, constituted under Section 14 of the Act, and the Board, after considering the materials placed before it, opined that there was sufficient cause for detaining the petitioner. Accordingly, the Government vide Order dated 03.11.2022, confirmed the order of detention issued against the petitioner. The respondents have further stated that the filing of the representation by the petitioner is a matter of record.

5) Mr. Hilal Ahmad Wani, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the documents relied upon by the detaining authority were not provided to him, and further that the representation submitted by the petitioner through his father was never decided by the detaining authority.

6) Per contra, Mr. Jehangir Ahmad Dar, learned GA, has vehemently argued that all the documents relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the order of detention were provided to the petitioner, which is evident from the execution report and the receipt of grounds of detention, duly signed by the petitioner. He has further argued that the representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the Government vide Order dated 21.06.2024.

7) Hear