Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
SHAKIR FAROOQ BHAT – Appellant
Versus
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ANR. (HOME DEPARTMENT) – Respondent
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 jus
Procedural safeguards in preventive detention must be strictly followed; failure to provide documents and delays in representation invalidate detention orders.
The detenu's right to make an effective representation and the necessity of providing all material relied upon for the detention as per Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
The failure to consider a detainee's representation and reliance on incorrect information invalidates a detention order under preventive detention laws.
The detaining authority must independently apply its mind and ensure the consideration of the petitioner's representation, and the detention order must not be a verbatim reproduction of the dossier c....
Preventive detention orders must comply with constitutional safeguards, including providing all material for effective representation and considering such representations.
The right to be informed of the grounds of detention and to access all materials relevant to that detention is fundamental under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, and any failure to comply with thes....
The court held that delays in considering and communicating the outcome of a representation against a detention order violate procedural safeguards under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Failure to provide translated grounds of detention and delay in considering representation violates constitutional rights, 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
