A preventive detention order is unsustainable if the grounds are vague, ambiguous, or a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier, as this indicates a non-application of mind by the detaining authority, violating the detenu's constitutional rights under Article 22(5).

JUDGEMENT

1. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashment of Order No. DMS/PSA/08/2025 dated 29.04.2025, passed by District Magistrate, Srinagar , whereby detenu, namely, Shabir Ahgmad Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq Ghulam R/o Baghyas Chattabal, Srinagar, has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State, on the grounds made mention of therein. The impugned order has been passed by the detaining authority on the basis of material supplied by Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar, vide his communication No. LGL/Det/2025/14050-53 dated 28.04.2025.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the detention record produced by the counsel appearing for respondents and considered the matter.

3. The case set up by the petitioner is that the detenu was bound down under Section 107 /109 and Section 107 /151. The detenu has neither past criminal record nor has any FIR lodged against him but has been falsely implicated by the Police on the basis of mala fide, extraneous considerations inasmuch as the grounds of detention, the copy of dossier, copies of proceedings initiated under Section 107 /151 Cr. P.C. and other relevant material was not supplied within stipulated time to the detenu to enable him to make the effective representation against his detention, inasmuch as the detaining authority has not applied its mind to the facts of the case but has acted to the report submitted by Sr. Superintendent of Police, Srinagar as the grounds of detention do not indicate any criminal case being registered against the detenu at any point of time till his lodgement except proceedings allegedly initiated under Section 107 /151 Cr. PC, for which he has been bound down for keeping peace and tranquillity.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague and indefinite and no prudent man can make an effective representation against these allegations inasmuch as case mentioned in grounds of detention has no nexus with detenu and detaining authority has not given any reasonable justification to pass impugned order of detention. He has vehemently argued that grounds of detention are replica of dossier and unequivocally reflects and shows non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority and as a consequence of which impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.

5. Respondents have filed reply affidavit, insisting therein that the activities indulged in by detenu are highly prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory and, therefore, his remaining at large is a threat to the security of Union Territory of J&K. The activities narrated in the grounds of detention have been reiterated in the reply affidavit filed by respondents. The factual averments that detenu was not supplied with relevant material relied upon in the grounds of detention have been refuted. It is insisted that all the relevant material, which has been relied upon by the detaining authority, was provided to the detenu at the time of execution of warrant.

6. Taking into account the rival contentions of parties and submissions made by learned counsel for parties, it would be relevant to go through the grounds of detention. Perusal thereof reveals that same are vague and ambiguous, and do not refer to any date, month or year of the activities, which have been attributed to deten