The failure to provide necessary material for effective representation against preventive detention violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution, rendering the detention order illegal.

JUDGMENT :

1) By the medium of instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and veracity of the order No.DMS/PSA/71/2022 dated 27.06.2022, issued by District Magistrate, Srinagar - respondent No.2 herein, in terms whereof, Mir Nasrullah son of Abdul Razak Mir resident of Diyarwani Batamaloo, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the detenue), has been placed under preventive custody and lodged in Central Jail, Jammu (Kotbalwal), for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to security of the State.

2) The petitioner has contended that 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 on the basis of 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. That the grounds of detention are non-existent and stale and that the representation filed by the detenue has not been considered by the respondents.

3) The respondents have resisted the petition by filing a reply affidavit thereto, wherein 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 relevant material relied upon by the detaining authority were handed over to the detenue and the same were read over and explained to him. It is 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 averred in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have placed reliance on various judgments of the Supreme Court and have also produced the detention record to lend credence to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.

4) I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the detention 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 the whole of the material to enable him to make an effective representation against his detention.

(II) That although a representation was submitted against the detention by the detenue through his father before the respondents yet the same has not been considered thereby rendering the detention order unsustainable in law.

6) So far as the first ground of challenge is concerned, a perusal of the material on record reveals that the petitioner has received copies of detention order (01 leaf), notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (02 leaves), dossier of detention (Nil), copies of FIR, statements of witnesses and other related relevant documents (03 leaves), (total 07 leaves). If we have a look at the grounds of detention, it bears reference to three FIRs viz FIR No.96/2005 of P/S Rajbagh, FIR No.67/2014 of P/S Batmaloo and FIR No.99/2014 of P/S Batamaloo. It was incumbent upon respondents to furnish not only the copies of the FIRs but also the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation of the said FIRs and other material on the basis of which petitioner’s involvement in the FIRs is shown. All this material would run in dozens of pages and it is impossible that all this material would be covered in only three leaves. Even the copy of the dossier of detention has not been supplied to the petitioner.

7) Thus, contention of the petitioner that whole of the materia