Preventive detention grounds must specify material particulars like places, identities of handlers/terrorists, and time periods; vagueness prevents effective representation under Article 22(5), vitiating the order.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

1) The petitioner, through the medium of the petition at hand, has impugned order of bearing No.01/DMB/PSA of 2025 dated 01.05.2025, issued by District Magistrate, Bandipora, placing the detenue, namely, Ab. Hameed Parray under preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

2) In the petition, it has been contended that previously the petitioner was placed under preventive detention pursuant to detention order No.07/DMB/PSA of 2018 dated 18.07.2018 which was quashed by this Court in HCP No.199/2018 and the same was allowed by virtue of judgment dated 12.12.2018. It has been contended that without there being any fresh activities attributable to the petitioner, the impugned order has been issued on the identical grounds. It has also been contended that the alleged fresh activities attributed to the detenue are vague lacking in material particulars, on the basis of which the petitioner could not make an effective representation against the impugned order of detention.

3) The respondents have contested the petition by filing their reply affidavit, wherein it has been contended that the activities of the detenue are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It has been contended that the petitioner is involved in multiple FIRs and he has been at the forefront of implementing the agenda of subversive and anti-national organizations. It has been contended that after the release of petitioner from preventive detention, he was again found involved in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order resulting in issuance of impugned detention order; 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 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 contended 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 the parties and perused record of the cases including 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 ground that the grounds of detention are vague and cryptic, which prevented him from making an effective representation against his detention.

6) Upon perusal of the detention record produced by learned counsel for the respondents, the ground projected regarding vagueness of the averments made in the grounds of detention, appears to be forceful. In the grounds of detention, it is mentioned that after the release of the petitioner from preventive detention upon quashment of his preventive detention order in terms of order dated 18.07.2018 passed by this Court, he again developed contact with various terrorist/secessionist organizations to carry out the activities of secessionism and terrorism and that he was in touch with Lashkar-e-Toiba handlers. It is also mentioned in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is actively involved in aiding and abetting unlawful activities, providing logistic support to LeT terrorists thereby posing a serious threat to public order.

7) In the grounds of detention, there