Preventive detention orders must adhere to constitutional safeguards, but non-disclosure of intelligence reports is permissible if it serves public interest.

JUDGE JUDGMETNT

1. The petitioner has challenged order bearing No. 17/DMP/PSA of 2024 dated 26.07.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Poonch(hereinafter to be referred as the Detaining Authority), whereby he has been taken into preventive custody with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.

2. The petitioner has challenged impugned order of detention on the grounds that the same has been passed in a mechanical manner in utter disregard of the constitutional and statutory safeguards. It has been contended that the impugned order of detention has been passed without application of mind and without drawing subjective satisfaction simply on the basis of dossier submitted by the Police. It has been contended that the petitioner has not been informed as regards the period within which he was entitled to make a representation against the impugned order of detention to the Detaining Authority as well as to the Government. It has been further submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the grounds of detention are without any basis and that the grounds of detention are replica of the Police dossier. It has also been contended that the petitioner has not been furnished whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention. According to the petitioner, the allegations made in the impugned order of detention are absolutely false and frivolous and that the same are vague.

3. The Detaining Authority has filed its counter affidavit in which, it has been submitted that all the constitutional and statutory safeguards have been adhered to by the respondents while detaining the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has been furnished to the petitioner. According to the respondents, the petitioner has been actively involved in separatist and secessionist ideologies within District Poonch and he has been working as Over Ground Worker for Jaish-e-Mohammad, a banned outfit. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has been aiding the movement of terrorists in District Poonch and facilitating their evasion of security forces. It has been submitted that the petitioner’s constant engagement in terror related activities have created disturbance, fear and atmosphere of insecurity in the UT of Jammu and Kashmir. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has been providing logistic support to the terrorists and he is also harbouring such elements.

4. Thus according to the respondents, the petitioner poses a great threat to the safety and security of the State. It has also been submitted that the Detaining Authority has after examining the dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Poonch, analysed the material and drawn its subjective satisfaction after due application of mind. It has also been submitted that contents of the material supplied to the petitioner have been read over and explained to him in Urdu/Pahari languages, which he understands. In order to support their contentions, the respondents have produced the detention record.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the detention record produced by learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has restricted his arguments only to two grounds. One that the petitioner has not been furnished whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention which has prevented him from making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention and second that the grounds of detention is replica of the Police dossier which indicates that there has been non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority while drawing its subjective satisfaction in the matter. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments:

i) Rameez Ahmed Lone vs. U. T of J&K