Preventive detention requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards; non-compliance leads to quashing of detention orders.

1. This is the petition of mother of detenu - Tawseef Ahmad Khan @Tarzan son of Mohammad Amin Khan resident of Qazi Hamam at present AlMustafa Colony, Tehsil and District Baramulla. She seeks quashment of detention order No.171 / DMB / PSA / 2016 dated 19th November 2016, that District Magistrate, Baramulla (for brevity 'Detaining Authority'),has passed, directing preventive detention of detenu, on the grounds detailed in petition on hand.

2. Respondents filed their counter and resisted the petition.

3. Heard and considered.

4. At threshold, learned counsel for respondents states that detention order has been passed on subjective satisfaction by detaining authority. He further states that impugned detention has been extended for further period of three months vide Government Order No. Home / PB - V / 510 of2017 dated 22nd February 2017, and therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner states that detenu was required to be supplied all documents, statements and other material relied upon in the grounds of detention, like 20 FIRs, statements recorded in the said 20FIRs, material collected during investigation of said FIRs, 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 and even detenu, independent of making representation to the Government, was not informed to make a representation to Detaining Authority as well. His submission is that ground of detention is ad verbum of Dossier. He further states the extension of detention is also liable to be quashed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel refers to judgements passed in Rajinder Arora v. Union of India , 2006 (4) SCC 796 : AIR 2006 SC 1719; Powanammal v. State of Tamil Nadu and anr., AIR 1999 SC 618 ; State of Maharashtra & ors v. Santosh Shankar Acharya, AIR 2000 SC 2504 ; Rekha v. State of Tamilnadu , AIR 2011 SCW 2262 ; Thahira Haris Etc. Etc. v. Government of Karnataka, AIR 2009 SC 2184 ; G. M. Shah v. State of J & K, 1980 (1) SCC 132 : AIR 1980 SC 494; TalibHussain v. State of J&K & ors, 2009 (II) SLJ 849; Nissar Ahmad Bhat v. State& ors, 2014 (3) SLJ 1047; Shahmali v. State and others, 2010 (1) SLJ 56;Dilawar Magray v. State of J & K & ors, 2010 (2) SLJ 696; and Sajad AhmadKhan v. State & ors, 2010 (2) SLJ 743.

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 incases 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 i