The failure to provide relevant material to a detenue violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution, impacting the right to make an effective representation against detention.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner, Haseena has filed the instant habeas corpus petition to challenge and seek quashment of the order No. DMS/ PSA /25/2024 dated 05.09.2024, for short impugned order, in terms whereof her husband Noor Mohammad Bhat S/o Ghulam Mohammad Bhat R/o Kondenpeth Habbak, Srinagar, for short detenue, has been detained by respondent No. 2, under the provisions of Public Safety Act , 1978, for short Act, on variety of grounds taken in the memo of the petition.

2. Upon notice respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit resisting the claim of the petitioner.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. The detenue is stated to have falsely been implicated in connection with case FIR Nos. 24/2024, 81/2024, 123/2024, 126/2024, and 127/2024, of police station Nigeen registered under various penal offences. The registration of these FIRs against the detenue are stated to be result of vengeance of one Manzoor Ahmad Dar S/o Habibullah Dar R/o Tailbal at whose instance the above said FIRs have come into being. It is stated that the detenue and his daughter had given loan to said Manzoor Ahmad Dar who, on demand, not only refused to return the same but also filed complaint and sought registration of the cases against the detenue which ultimately resulted in issuance of the impugned order.

4. It is stated that the family members of the detenue approached respondent No. 4-Station House Officer, Nigeen, who instead of looking into the controversy detained them. It is further stated that mere allegations leveled against the detenue in the aforementioned FIRs cannot form a ground for invoking the provisions of Public Safety Act 1978.

5. The impugned order is challenged inter alia on the grounds that the same is bad in the eyes of law; is reflective of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority; the dispute involved in the present case explicitly attract the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act and not the provisions of Public Safety Act ; is violative of the fundamental rights of the detenue; is vague, cryptic; the detenue has not been furnished the entire material to enable him to file a representation against his detention; the detenue was already in custody when the detention order was passed.

6. Per contra the respondents in their counter affidavit have, while refuting the allegations of the petitioner, stated that the detenue has got engaged in illicit activities at a young age including lending money to people at usurious interest rates or for extra money without registering, buying and selling land in various locations, and deceiving people into parting with their hard earned money; detenue was found to be sharing the company with chronic miscreants/nuisances/thieves in district Srinagar and with the help of his associates he provokes local youth of his area towards antisocial activity; the anti social activities of the detenue were aimed at to disturb the public order, peace and tranquility; the detenue is involved in case FIR Nos. 24/2024, 81/2024, 123/2024, 126/2024, and 127/2024, of police station Nigeen, registered under various penal offences including 419, 420, 120-B, 506 IPC, 20, 21, 22, „Money Lenders and Accredited Loan Provider Act, 2010‟; the grounds of detention and other allied material, on the basis whereof the detention order has been issued, have been furnished to the detenue; the involvement of the detenue in the acts, for which five FIRs have been registered, has led to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority to detain the detenue under preventive detention; the activities of the detenue were found to be highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, therefore, preventive detention has been ordered.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the detention record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mostly laid emphasis on the grounds of non-application of mind, non-furnishing of entire d