Preventive detention orders must provide sufficient grounds and comply with procedural safeguards; failure to do so can lead to quashment.

JUDGMENT :

1) By the instant petition, quashment of order No.88/DMP/PSA/22 dated 09.12.2022, issued by District Magistrate, Pulwama (for brevity “Detaining Authority”) is sought. In terms of the aforesaid order, Kifayat Rashid Bhat (for short “the detenue”) has been placed under preventive detention and lodged in Central Jail, Kotbhalwal, Jammu.

2) The petitioner has contended that the detaining authority has issued the impugned detention order mechanically 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 which formed basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner. It has also been contended that the representation of the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been considered.

3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have submitted that the activities of the detenue are highly prejudicial to the security of the State. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention 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 and that all the constitutional and procedural safeguards have been strictly followed while issuing the impugned order. The respondents have produced the detention records in order to buttress the contentions raised in the counter affidavit.

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

5) During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis on the following grounds:

(I) That the petitioner has not been furnished whole of the material that has been relied upon while formulating the grounds of detention nor its translated version has been furnished to him, which has prevented the petitioner from making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention.

(II) That the representation made by the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been considered by the respondents which vitiates the impugned order of detention.

(III) That the allegations made in the grounds of detention against the petitioner are vague without any specific details, on the basis of which it was not possible for the petitioner to make an effective representation against the impugned order of detention.

(IV) That there has been lack of application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while framing the grounds of detention;

6) So far as the first ground of challenge is concerned, a perusal of the detention record reveals that the petitioner has executed a receipt with regard to grounds of detention and other relevant record. As per the said receipt, the petitioner has received copies of detention order, (01 leaf), notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (02 leaves), dossier (04 leaves), (total 08 leaves). The record further reveals that the grounds of detention do not bear reference to any FIR. Obviously, neither any copy of FIR nor any other material relating to any criminal case against the petitioner has been furnished to him. However, copies of the dossier, detention order, grounds of detention and notice of detention have been received by the petitioner. Thus, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has been deprived of any vital document that would have prevented him from making an effective representation against his detention. The respondents have provided whole of the material which has been relied upon by the detaining authority while framing gr