Preventive detention upheld where detaining authority's subjective satisfaction rationally based on material indicating prejudicial activities to state security; courts cannot substitute view or question grounds sufficiency if connected to preventive objects.

JUDGMENT :

M. A. CHOWDHARY, J.

1. By virtue of Detention Order No. 06/DMP/PSA/25 dated 30.04.2025 (for short ‘impugned order’) passed by respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Pulwama the detenue namely Rouf Ahmad Lone S/O Late Abdul Majeed Lone R/O Lelhara, Kakapora, Pulwama was ordered to be detained under preventive custody in terms of Section-8 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short ‘the Act’) with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of State, to warrant immediate measures to be taken against him to prevent him from indulging in such activities.

2. Aggrieved of the said detention order, detenue, through his mother, has filed the present petition seeking quashment of the same on the grounds, that the detenue, in terms of the impugned order, has been detained under the Act on false and flimsy grounds without any justification; that the grounds of detention are vague and mere assertions of the detaining authority and no prudent man can make an effective and meaningful representation against these allegations. Further plea of the detenue is that he has not been provided the material/documents relied upon by the detaining authority, so as to make an effective representation before the detaining authority; that he was not informed that he can make a representation before the District Magistrate, therefore, a valuable right of the detenue stands defeated; that the Detaining authority, while passing the impugned order, has relied upon the stale grounds, therefore, the same is not sustainable. It was prayed to quash the impugned order for the afore-stated grounds.

3. Reply affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2, vehemently, resisting the petition. It is contended that detaining a person under the provisions of Public Safety Act is always preventive in nature and its sole aim is to prevent a person from pursuing anti-national/anti-social activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order/security of the State. In the instant case there is enough material against the detenue which is highly suggestive of the fact that the normal law of the land is not sufficient to prevent him from continuing with his anti-national activities and it is evident that the detenue is highly motivated and is not likely to desist from anti-national and unlawful activities.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the detention record produced by learned counsel for the respondents and considered.

5. The detention record, on its perusal, would indicate that the detenue was earlier arrested in a case registered vide FIR No.19/2022 under sections 18, 19, 20, 38, 39 UAP Act at P/S Kakapora, and was released on bail on 17.10.2022. Thereafter, again the detenue was kept under preventive measures on 10.03.2025, 23.03.2025 and 24.04.2025 under section 126 of BNSS, for his involvement in anti-national activities, but was released on furnishing surety bonds. The detenue however, did not mend his behavior, which is suggestive of the fact that the detaining authority in order to curb the criminal/anti-national activities of the detenue, detained him under the provisions of Public Safety Act.

6. It would be apt to say that right of personal liberty is most precious right, guaranteed under the Constitution. A person is not to be deprived of his personal liberty, except in accordance with procedures established under law and the procedure as laid down in the case ‘ Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India , (1978 AIR SC 597)’, is to be just and fair. The personal liberty may be curtailed where a person faces