Vagueness in grounds of preventive detention violates constitutional rights and undermines the legality of the detention order.

JUDGMENT

1) By the instant petition, veracity and legality of the detention order No.23/DMB/PSA/23dated 12.05.2023, issued by District Magistrate, Pulwama (for brevity “detaining authority”) has been challenged. In terms of the aforesaid order, Umer Kabir Mir (for short “detenue”) has been placed under preventive detention and lodged in Central Jail, Kothbalwal, Jammu.

2) The petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind, inasmuch as the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and that the same have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent 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 which formed basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner.

3) Upon being put to notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their reply affidavit, wherein they have disputed the averments made in the petition and insisted that the activities of 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. That the grounds urged by the petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and without any merit. 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 further claimed in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority. That the order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hardhan Saha v. State of W.B (1975) 3 SCC 198. The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.

4) I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

5) 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 the detenue was not furnished the translated version of the material which formed the basis of the grounds of detention to enable him to make an effective representation against his detention

(II) That the grounds of detention are vague, on the basis of which it was not possible for the petitioner to make an effective representation.

6) So far as the first ground of challenge is concerned, a perusal of the record produced by the learned counsel for the respondents reveals that the detenue is a semi-literate person. Thus, he would not be in a position to understand the contents of the grounds of detention. The record also suggests that the translated copies of grounds of detention have not been supplied to the detenue. Therefore, right of making an effective representation against the detention order has been rendered nugatory in this case, resulting in infringement of Constitutional right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

7) The service of the grounds of detention on the detenue isa very precious constitutional right and the object behind the same is to enable the detenue to file an effective representation. It will be an empty formality to supply the grounds of detention to the detenue unless he is in a position to understand the same. In my aforesaid view I am fortified by the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Chaju Ram