Preventive detention vitiated by vague grounds lacking specifics, mechanical reproduction of police dossier showing non-application of mind, failure to supply material in understandable language, and absence of live proximate nexus.

JUDGMENT :

WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, J.

PRAYER

1) The instant petition has been preferred by the detenue through his brother namely Mumtaz Ali Kohli, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein following reliefs have been sought:

(i) A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, may be issued and the impugned Detention Order passed by the Respondent No, 2 Vide order No. 30/DMB/PSA/2024 Dated 19.04.2024 may be quashed alongwith confirmation order, if any, passed against the detenue.

(ii) A WRIT OF MANDAMUS may be issued and the Respondents may be commanded to set the detenue namely Maqsad Ali Kohli, aged 34 years. S/O Maqsood Ali R/O Navarunda Tehsil Uri District Baramulla at liberty forthwith.

(iii) A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, commanding the respondents to pay the exemplary damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and be commanded to compensate the detenue for being in illegal detention to the tune of Rs. 20.00 lacs.

(iv) Any other Writ, Order or Direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in given circumstances of the case may be issued in favour of the Petitioner

BRIEF FACTS

2) The present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed challenging the detention of the detenue under Order No. 30/DMB/PSA/2024 dated 19.04.2024, passed by the District Magistrate, Baramulla, in exercise of powers under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.

3) The detention order is stated to have been passed on the basis of a dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Baramulla, alleging that the detenue was involved in activities prejudicial to the security of the State. Pursuant to the said order, the detenue was taken into custody and is presently lodged in Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashment of the detention order.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned detention order is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of constitutional safeguards.

5) It is contended that the grounds of detention are vague, baseless, and lacking any proximate nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The detenue has not been shown to be involved in any act, and no FIR or criminal case has been registered against him. The allegations are stated to be based on mere assumptions and conjectures.

6) It is further submitted that there has been total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, as the grounds of detention are a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier, thereby demonstrating absence of independent satisfaction.

7) The Learned counsel further submits that the material relied upon, including the dossier, FIRs, and statements, was not furnished to the detenue, thereby depriving him of his valuable right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

8) It is also urged that the detenue is illiterate and not conversant with the English language, yet the grounds of detention were supplied in English without providing any translated version, rendering the right of representation illusory.

9) Another limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel is that the d