Preventive detention requires a live and proximate link between the grounds and the order; vague grounds based on stale incidents do not justify detention.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for quashing the order of detention bearing No. 07th/DM/K/PSA of 2023 dated 15.09.2023, issued by the respondent No. 2 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Detaining Authority’), whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be detained under the Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short ‘the Act’), on the following grounds:

(i) That the Detaining Authority has not applied its mind while passing the order of detention and has mechanically relied upon the dossier submitted by respondent No. 3, who seems to be unaware as to what happened to the FIRs (relied upon by the Detaining Authority), more particularly when the petitioner was enlarged on bail in FIR No. 77/1999, FIR No. 99/2009 and other FIRs mentioned in the dossier, though there is a reference to the order of bail dated 20.07.2023 passed by High Court in FIR No. 182/2018 under sections 120-B, 121, 121-A RPC, 03/13 ULA Act registered with Police Station, Kishtwar.

(ii) That there is no ‘live and proximate’ link between the prejudicial activities of the petitioner and the order of detention. The petitioner could not have been detained for stale incidents in respect of which FIRs were registered in the year, 1999, 2009 and 2018.

(iii) It is also urged that the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority has not been supplied to the petitioner which incapacitated him to submit an effective representation to the Government against the order of detention.

(iv) That the grounds of detention are vague, and it is nowhere stated as to with which banned militant organization, the petitioner is associated/affiliated.

2. The respondent No. 2/Detaining Authority has filed the counter affidavit stating therein that the petitioner was involved in FIRs bearing Nos. 77/1999 for offences under sections 117, 124-A RPC of Police Station, Kishtwar, 99/2019 for offences under sections 457, 380, 395, 120-B RPC of Police Station, Dachan, Kishtwar and 182/2018 for offences under sections 120-B, 121, 121-A RPC and 03/13 ULA Act of Police Station, Kishtwar but the petitioner did not mend his ways and every time after he got the bail, resumed his anti-national activities. It is further stated that on receipt of the dossier from the respondent No. 3 in respect of illegal activities of the petitioner, the Detaining Authority in exercise of powers conferred under subsection (2) of section 8 of the Act, has issued the order of detention against the detenue in the interest of the security of the State (Union Territory). As per the dossier, the petitioner is highly influenced by the separatists’ mind set and remained affiliated with banned organization Hizbul Mujahideen. He worked as an Over Ground Worker of the above said banned organization and his activities were highly prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory. Normal law had not been found to be sufficient to deter the petitioner from indulging him in anti-national activities. The order of detention issued by the Detaining Authority has been approved by the Government vide order No. Home/PB-V/2146 of 2023 dated 19.09.2023 and was subsequently confirmed by the Government vide order dated 06.10.2023, after obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board. It is also averred by the Detaining Authority that the Daily Diary Report Nos. 25 dated 01.08.2023, 20 dated 07.08.2023, 18 dated 09.08.2023, all of Police Station, Kishtwar and District Special Branch, Kishtwar report dated 10.08.2023 mentioned that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory. The order of detention issued by respondent No. 2 dated 15.09.2023 was executed as per settled principles of law under the Act by PSI Rahul Sharma. The contents of detention warrant and grounds of detention were explained to the detenue in the Urdu and Kashmiri languages, which he fully understood. The grounds of detention along with relevant documents, total -111 leaves were provided to the petitioner in presence of th