Preventive detention orders must provide necessary materials for effective representation and cannot rely on stale incidents without a proximate link to current threats.

JUDGMENT :

1) The petitioner has challenged detention order No.13/DMB/PSA/2024 dated 04.04.2024, issued by District Magistrate,Baramulla (for brevity “detaining authority”) has been challenged. In terms of the aforesaid order, Khursheed Ahmad Waza(for short “detenue”) has been placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the UT of J&K.

2) The petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order without application of mind 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 that formed basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner. It has also been contended that the representation filed by the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been considered.

3) The respondents have resisted the petition by filing a reply affidavit, where in they have contended 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 besides other, 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 also 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 whole 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 impugned order of detention is based upon stale incidents having no proximate link to the activities alleged to be prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State.

(III) That the representation filed by the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been considered by the respondents thereby violating his statutory and constitutional rights.

6) So far as the first ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, a perusal of the detention record produced by learned counsel for the respondents reveals that the material is stated to have been received by the petitioner on 06.04.2024. Report of the Executing Officer in this regard forms part of the detention record, a perusal whereof reveals that it bears the signature of the petitioner and according to it, in total (11) leaves, have been supplied to him. What were these 11 leaves, has not been explained by the respondents.

7) If we have a look at the grounds of detention, it bears reference to as many as three FIRs viz. FIR Nos.187/2015, 169/2016 and 197/2016 registered with P/S Pattan. It was incumbent upon th