Preventive detention orders must demonstrate the detaining authority's application of mind and provide specific allegations, which were upheld in this case.

JUDGMENT :

1) The petitioner through the medium of this petition, has assailed order of detention bearing No.78/DMK/PSA/2022 dated 01.12.2022, issued by District Magistrate, Kulgam (for brevity “the Detaining Authority”). In terms of the impugned order, Dilawar Ahmad Padder has been placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security, sovereignty and integrity of the State.

2) The petitioner has contended that there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case. It has also been urged that the allegations made against the detenue in the grounds of detention are vague and that whole of the material that formed the basis of the grounds of detention has not been furnished to the detenue. It has also been contended that the representation of the petitioner against the impugned detention order has not been considered by the respondents.

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 the detenue are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State. It is pleaded that whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority has been furnished to the detenue and contents of 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 and that the detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention but despite that he has not chosen to file any representation. It is further contented in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the impugned order has been issued validly and legally. 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) During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis on the contention that there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order and that the material as well its translated version has not been furnished to the petitioner so as to enable him to make an effective representation against his detention. It has also been contended that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner mentioned in the grounds of detention.

6) While contending that there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the impugned order, it has been submitted that the grounds of detention are in similar language as that of the police dossier. However, a perusal of the grounds of detention and the police dossier reveals that the factual aspects narrated in these documents may be in similar language but in the grounds of detention the detaining authority has, after narrating the factual aspects, drawn its subjective satisfaction as regards the need for petitioner’s preventive detention by applying its independent mind. Even the language of the grounds of detention and the police dossier barring the factual aspect is not similar in nature. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is without any merit.

7) So far as the supply of material, on the basis of which the grounds of detention have been formulated, is concerned, a perusal of the receipt of grounds of detention, which is available in the detention record, shows that the petitioner has received copy of the detention order, notice of detention, grounds of detention, dossier of detention as well a