IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 06.11.2025 Pronounced on: 14.11.2025 Uploaded on: 14.11.2025 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full HCP No.323/2024 ABDUL BASIT PAUL ...PETITIONER/APPELLANT(S)

Through: -Mr. B. A. Tak, Advocate Vs.

UT OF J&K & ORS …RESPONDENT(S)

Through: -Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy. AG.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE.

JUDGMENT

1) The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged detention order bearing No.191/DMS/ PSA/2024 dated 12.09.2024, passed by District Magistrate, Shopian-respondent No.2, whereby Abdul Basit Paul (“the detenue”), has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the UT/Country.

2) The petitioner has contended that the impugned order of detention is illegal, unconstitutional and bad in the eyes of law, inasmuch as the detaining authority has not followed the constitutional and statutory procedural safeguards as provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. It has been contended that no specific allegations have been attributed to the petitioner in the grounds of detention and the same are bereft of specific details. It has been further contended that the grounds of detention are vague and cryptic and non-existent. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are vague and cryptic in nature. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are replica of the police dossier. It has also been contended that whole of the material which formed the basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner. It has been further contended that the representation filed by the detenue against his detention has not been considered.

3) The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing their reply affidavit, wherein they have contended that the activities of the detenue are highly prejudicial to security of the State. It has been pleaded that whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority has been furnished to the detenue and the same was read over and explained to him and 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 contented in the reply affidavit that all the 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, besides other judgments, have also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Haradhan Saha v. State of W. B., (1975) 3 SCC 198 and have also produced the detention record to lend credence to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.

4) I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

5) Although the petitioner has raised a number of grounds for assailing the impugned order of detention yet, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis on the following grounds:

(I) That there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in formulating the grounds of detention, inasmuch as the same appears to be the Xerox copy of the dossier of detention.

(II) That the grounds of detention formulated by the detaining authority are vague, on the basis of which no prudent person would be able to make a representation.

(III) That the representation made by the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been considered.

(IV) That whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has not been supplied to the petitioner which prevented him from making an effective and suitable representation against the impugned order of detention.

6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7) So far as the first ground urged by the petitioner is concerned, in this regard a perus