IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
SANJAY DHAR, J
Parvaiz Ahmad Khan – Appellant
Versus
Ut Of J&k – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1) The Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act of 1988”), has, vide order No.DIVCOM-“K”/53/2024 dated 16.04.2024, ordered preventive detention of Parvaiz Ahamd Khan (hereinafter referred to as the detenue), in order to prevent him from committing any of the acts within the meaning of the Act of 1988.
2) By the instant petition, veracity and legality of the impugned detention order has been challenged by the petitioner contending that the impugned detention order has been passed without application of mind as the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and stale on which no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material has not been provided to the petitioner. It has been further urged that there has been non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order as the detenue was
Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra & ors
Thahira Haris etc. etc. Vs. Government of Karnataka & Ors
Rahmatullah Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.
Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs. District Magistrate, Jabalpur and others
Preventive detention orders must comply with constitutional safeguards, including the right to effective representation, and failure to provide necessary material renders such orders invalid.
Preventive detention orders must provide all relevant material to the detenue for effective representation; failure to do so renders the order illegal.
Preventive detention requires compelling reasons when the individual is already in custody; failure to consider representation against detention violates constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5)....
The failure to consider a detenue's representation against preventive detention violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution, rendering the detention invalid.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.