Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, J
ABDUL AHAD ALIAS AHAD MOLVI – Appellant
Versus
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME DEPARTMENT) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1) The petitioner has challenged detention order bearing No.12/DMB/PSA/2024 dated 04.04.2024, 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, Abdul Ahad Dar @ Ahad Molvi 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 some of the FIRs mentioned in the grounds of detention but the said fact is not mentioned in the grounds of detenti
Preventive detention orders must provide all relevant material to the detenue for effective representation; failure to do so renders the order illegal.
Preventive detention orders must provide necessary materials for effective representation and cannot rely on stale incidents without a proximate link to current threats.
Preventive detention orders must comply with constitutional safeguards, including providing the detenue with all relevant materials to ensure the right to make an effective representation.
Preventive detention orders must be based on recent conduct with a live link to current threats, and failure to provide necessary documentation to the detenue violates procedural safeguards.
The detention order must comply with constitutional safeguards, including the provision of necessary material for an effective representation and cannot be based on stale incidents.
Preventive detention orders must have a clear nexus with the alleged activities of the detenue, and the detaining authority must demonstrate application of mind in framing the grounds.
Preventive detention orders must provide all relevant material to the detenue for effective representation; failure to do so renders the order illegal.
Unexplained delay in executing a preventive detention order and failure to supply necessary material violate constitutional rights, rendering the detention order illegal.
The failure to provide essential documents to a detenue violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution, 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
