Preventive detention orders must comply with procedural safeguards, including timely communication of grounds and opportunity for representation, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

1. Order No.16/DMA/PSA/DET/2024 dated 20.04.2024, passed by District Magistrate, Anantnag, respondent no.2 herein, (for brevity “detaining authority”) vide which detenu, namely, Aashiq Hussain Mir S/o Gulzar Ahmad Mir R/o Shirpora Anantnag, has been placed under preventive detention under and in terms of Section 8 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to security of State/ UT of J&K, is being challenged by detenu through his brother.

2. Reply has been filed by respondents, averring therein that detenu has been found indulging in various activities that attempt at use of force in such proportion, using and inciting that is aimed at or is likely to disturb peace and public order. His felonious acts have not only made life of general masses miserable but also there is every chance that detenu’s activities are highly prejudicial to maintenance of public order. He was hardcore trouble monger and staunch stone pelter in the area. Detenu is stated to be involved in luring local youth for criminal/unlawful activities and provoking them for destabilization and subversion of public order in society. The material relied upon by detaining authority is stated to have been given to detenu to enable him to make a representation against his detention. It is also stated that representation made by petitioner has been rejected vide no.Home/PB-V/298/2024(7459846) dated 21.08.2024.

3. Petitioner’s narration in instant petition is that it was in the month of April 2024 when detenu was arrested and taken to JIC Anantnag. He was then shifted to Central Jail Jammu, Kothbhalwal so as to detain him on the edifice of impugned order of detention.

4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

5. First ground of challenge, that has also been iterated by Mr. Wajid M. Haseeb, who is appearing as learned counsel for petitioner/detenu, is that grounds of detention have no nexus with detenu, more particularly when there is no de jure justification coming forth from grounds of detention to slap preventive detention upon detenu. He then avers that allegations contained in grounds of detention are so vague and absurd that no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations.

6. Mr. Wajid M. Haseeb’s next contention is that grounds of detention are replica of police dossier. Nevertheless, petitioner is stated to have made a representation to respondent no.1, which has not been considered in due course of law, rendering impugned order of detention illegal and unconstitutional. He would also assert that respondent no.2 was constitutionally duty bound to furnish relevant material to detenu, like connected documents which, as per grounds of detention, had been furnished to detaining authority by police and after relying thereupon, detention order has been passed. The material regarding cases as mentioned in grounds of detention, material including seizure memo, recovery memo, material regarding 107 proceedings and bound down given thereof, the material on the basis whereof allegations mentioned in para third onwards of grounds of detention, so as to enable detenu to make an effective representation by giving his version of facts attributed to him and make an attempt to dispel apprehensions nursed by detaining authority concerning alleged prejudicial activities, against the order to competent authority.

7. The submission that has been strenuously urged by the learned counsel for detenu is that although representation filed by detenu post detention through his father, which according to respondents has been rejected on 21.08.2024, yet the rejection order has not been conveyed to him, thereby infringing his constitutional and statutory rights.

8. In the context of Reply filed by respondents, it is worth to go through detention record, more particularly Report of Advisory Board. Perusal of Report of Advisory Board dated 08.05.2023, interestingly, mentions, “No representation seems to ha