Preventive detention orders must provide all relevant material to the detenue for effective representation; failure to do so renders the order illegal.

JUDGMENT :

1) The petitioner has challenged detention order bearing No.09/DMB/PSA/2023 dated 23.02.2023, issued by District Magistrate, Baramulla, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, whereby the detenue, namely, Shoib Ramzan Tantry has been placed under preventive detention so as to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State.

2) It has been contended by the petitioner 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 already admitted to bail in one of the FIRs mentioned in the grounds of detention but the said fact is not mentioned in the grounds of detention.

3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have contended that none of the legal rights of the petitioner have been infringed or violated. It has been further contended that the activities of the detenue are highly prejudicial to the security of the State. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention along with the material relied upon by the detaining authority were handed over to the detenue and the same were read over and explained to him. It has been further contended that the detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention. It is also averred in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.

4) 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 there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as the detenue has already been admitted to bail in FIR No.210/2021 registered with P/S Sopore, but this fact has not been mentioned in the grounds of detention.

(ii) That whole of the material that formed basis of the grounds of detention has not been supplied to the petitioner, thereby violating his right of making an effective representation against his detention.

5) In rebuttal, 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 he is involved in various criminal acts and, as such, 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.

6) So far as the first ground of challenge is concerned, from a perusal of the material available on file, the ground regarding non-application of mind on the