Denial of necessary documentation violates the rights of detainee under the Constitution, mandating strict adherence to procedural safeguards in preventive detention.

1. Detenu '" Bashir Ahmad Rather son of Ghulam Rasool Rather resident of Beehama, Tehsil& District Ganderbal (for short 'detenu') seeks quashment of detention order No.140 - DMG / PSA / 2016 dated 29th September 2016, passed by District Magistrate, Ganderbal (for brevity 'Detaining Authority'), directing preventive detention of detenu, on the grounds detailed in petition on hand.

2. Respondents filed their counter in opposition to the petition and resisted the petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered thematter.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner states that detenu was required to besupplied all documents, statements and other material relied upon in the grounds of detention, so as to enable him to make an effective and meaningful representation against his detention and failure to supply such material / documents, amounts to violation of Art.22(5) of the Constitution of India . In cement his submissions, learned counsel places reliance on decision rendered in Rajinder Arora v. Union of India , 2006 (4) SCC 796 : AIR 2006 SC 1719; Powanammal v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, AIR 1999 SC 618; State of Maharashtra & ors v. Santosh Shankar Acharya AIR 2000 SC 2504 ; Rekha v. State of Tamilnadu AIR2011 SCW 2262; Thahira Haris Etc. Etc. v. Government of Karnataka AIR 2009 SC2184; G. M. Shah v. State of J&K (1980) 1 SCC 132 : (AIR 1980 SC 494); Talib Hussain v. State of J&K& ors 2009 (II) SLJ 849; Nissar Ahmad Bhat v. State & ors 2014 (III) SLJ 1047;Shahmali v. State and others 2010 (1) SLJ 56; Dilawar Magray v. State of J&K &ors 2010 (II) SLJ 696; and Sajad Ahmad Khan v. State & ors 2010 (II) SLJ 743.

5. Learned counsel for respondents states that detention order has been passed on subjective satisfaction by detaining authority, therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Art.22(3)(b) of the Constitution of India that permits preventive detention, is only an exception to Art.21 of the Constitution. An exception is an exception and cannot ordinarily nullify the full force of the main rule, which is the right to liberty in Art.21 of the Constitution. Fundamental rights are meant for protecting the civil liberties of the people and not to put them in jail for a long period without recourse to a lawyer and without a trial.

7. It is all very well to say that preventive detention is preventive not punitive. The truth of the matter, though, is that in substance a detention order of three months, or any other period(s), is a punishment of that particular period' s imprisonment. What difference is it to the detenu whether his imprisonment is called preventive or punitive? Further in cases of preventive detention no offence is proved and the justification of such detention is suspicion or reasonable probability, and there is no conviction which can only be warranted by legal evidence. Preventive detention is often described as a 'jurisdiction of suspicion' , The detaining authority passes the order of detention on subjective satisfaction. Preventive detention is, by nature, repugnant to democratic ideas and an anathemato the rule of law. Since clause (3) of Art.22 specifically excludes the applicability of clauses (1) and (2), the detenu is not entitled to a lawyer or the right to be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. To prevent misuse of this potentially dangerous power the law of preventive detention has to be strictly construed and meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguards, however, technical, is, in our opinion, mandatory and vital.

8. In case of prev