Preventive detention must be justified by a clear threat to public order, not merely law and order, and requires the detaining authority to apply its mind independently.

JUDGMENT :

1. Impugned in the instant petition, filed under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner is the order of Detention bearing No. DMS/PSA/07/2024 dated 04.04.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the “detaining authority”, for short), while invoking his powers under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”, for short), whereby the petitioner/detenu has been ordered to be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and lodged in Central Jail, Srinagar.

2. The petitioner/detenu has sought the issuance of writs of certiorari and mandamus for quashment of the impugned detention order and his immediate release from alleged illegal custody.

3. The order impugned has been assailed on the grounds interalia, that petitioner is a citizen of India and domicile of UT of J&K and as such entitled to legal and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India; that he is filing the petition through his brother on account of his inability to do the same in person as being under detention; that the petitioner-detenu is alleged to be involved in criminal cases out of which three case FIRs were already registered against him in the year 2016 and the last one has been falsely and frivolously registered against him in the year 2024 under petty offences i.e 341, 323 IPC; that all the case FIRs have been registered only in one Police Station i.e P/S Saddar; that the petitioner /detenu has been already admitted to bail in all case FIRs, which as such have no nexus or proximity with the impugned detention order; that the impugned detention order appears to have been passed against the wrong person as the petitioner/detenu is a peace loving citizen having never indulged in any sort of anti-social offenses or the offences under NDPS Act, thus alleging him as “Veerapan” is highly condemnable; that the Detaining Authority has not applied its mind before passing the impugned detention order and has just acted upon the police dossier submitted by the concerned Superintendent of Police; that the grounds of detention appear to be replica of police dossier, thus again speaking of non application of mind by the detaining authority; that the petitioner/detenu has not been furnished with the record/documents relied upon by the detaining authority, thus observing in breach the mandatory procedural requirements under Article 22 clause (5) of the Constitution and that the representation made by him has not been considered.

4. The respondents through the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 being the detaining authority have resisted the instant petition on the grounds that none of the legal or fundamental rights of the petitioner-detenu stand violated by the respondents and as such the petition deserves dismissal for want of any cause of action. That the petitioner/detenu has not approached the court with clean hands and the pleas raised by him in the petition are baseless and concocted. That the entire process of detention right from the initial decision to detain the petitioner-detenu has been carried out with the utmost fairness and in accordance with the procedure as laid down by Act. That the petitioner/detenu has been furnished with the copies of the documents and as such there is no violation of the provisions of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution as alleged. That the petitioner/detenu was found repeatedly committing the anti-social offences which prompted the respondents to decide his preventive detention in the interest of the society. That the petitioner/detenu was instigating the youth of the society to get involved in the menace of drug addiction. That the petitioner‟s/detenu‟s detention was ordered after a proper and in-depth scrutiny and perusal of the record appearing against him and as such there is no non- application of mind as alleged. That t