The grounds of preventive detention must be explained in a language understood by the detenue to uphold their constitutional right to make an effective representation.

JUDGMENT :

1) By the instant petition, legality and veracity of the detention order No.08/DMB/PSA of 2023 dated 20.07.2023, issued by District Magistrate, Bandipora (for brevity “Detaining Authority”) is challenged. In terms of the aforesaid order, Shri Abdul Hameed Khan (for short “detenu”) has been placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

2) The petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind, inasmuch as the grounds of detention are mere reproduction of the dossier. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case. It has been also urged that the material which formed basis of the grounds of detention and the consequent order of detention and the translated version thereof has not been provided to the detenue and that the grounds of detention are vague and cryptic.

3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have disputed the averments made in the petition and insisted that the activities of detenue are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is pleaded that the impugned detention order has been passed validly after following all norms and procedural safeguards. It has also been contended that the detention order and grounds of detention were handed over to the detenue and the same were read over and explained to him and that whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority has been furnished to the detenue. The respondents have produced the detention records in order to buttress the contentions raised in the counter affidavit.

4) I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the detention record.

5) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the impugned order, projected various grounds but his main thrust during the course of arguments was on the following grounds:

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

(II) That the contents of the grounds of detention have not been read over and explained to the detenue so to enable him to make an effective representation against his detention.

6) Per contra, 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 as there were various FIRs pending against him and on this basis, 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, as produced, the first ground projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner gets support from the material on record. The grounds of detention are replica of dossier with interplay of some words here and there, which exhibits non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority. In the process, the deriving of subjective satisfaction 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 next ground projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detenue has been disabled from making an effective representation because the