Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKHAT SRINAGAR
SANJAY DHAR
Tanveer Ahmad Khan – Appellant
Versus
Ut Of J&k – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1) By the instant petition, veracity and legality of the detention order No.46/DMB/PSA/2023dated 21.07.2023, issued by District Magistrate, Baramulla (for brevity “detaining authority”) has been challenged. In terms of the aforesaid order, Tanveer Ahmad Khanhas 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) 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 respon
Vague grounds of preventive detention violate Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution, undermining the legality of the detention order.
Vagueness in grounds of preventive detention violates constitutional rights and undermines the legality of the detention order.
The failure to provide the detenue with necessary material for representation renders a preventive detention order illegal and violates constitutional rights.
Preventive detention orders must demonstrate independent reasoning and specificity in grounds to comply with constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5).
Preventive detention orders can be issued based on sufficient grounds, and prior revocation does not preclude new orders if circumstances warrant.
Non-consideration of a representation against preventive detention violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution, rendering the detention order illegal.
Preventive detention orders must provide sufficient grounds and comply with procedural safeguards; failure to do so can lead to quashment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for detention orders to be based on specific and non-vague grounds, the need to communicate the grounds of detention in a language ....
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
