Preventive detention is a subjective decision of the state to intercept potential harm. Judicial review is limited to assessing procedural compliance and existence of relevant material, without the court substituting its own judgment for the authority's satisfaction regarding the necessity of the order.

JUDGMENT

1. Impugned herein is the detention Order No. 35/DMB/PSA/2024 dated 16.05.2024 (for short ‘impugned order’) passed by respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Baramulla, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be detained under preventive custody in terms of Section-8 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short ‘the Act’) with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the ‘security of UT of J&K’.

2. Through the medium of the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the said detention order on the grounds that the detenue, in terms of the impugned order, has been detained under the Public Safety Act on false and flimsy grounds without any justification; that the grounds of detention are vague and mere assertions of the detaining authority and no prudent man can make an effective and meaningful representation against these allegations; that the detenue has not been provided the material/documents relied upon by the detaining authority so as to make an effective representation before the detaining authority; that he was not informed that he can make a representation before the District Magistrate, therefore, a valuable right of the detenue stands defeated; that the Detaining authority, while passing the impugned order, has relied upon the stale grounds, therefore, the same is not sustainable. It is prayed to quash the impugned order for the afore-stated grounds.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Baramulla, vehemently, resisting the petition. It is contended that detaining a person under the provisions of Public Safety Act is always preventive in nature and its sole aim is to prevent a person from pursuing anti-national/anti-social activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State/public order; that there is enough material against the detenue which is highly suggestive of the fact that the normal law of the land is not sufficient to prevent him from continuing with his anti-national activities and it is evident that the detenue is highly motivated and is not likely to desist from anti-national and unlawful activities.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions.

5. Perusal of the material available on file, would indicate that the detenue was arrested in a case registered vide FIR No.82/2021 under sections 506 IPC, 13 ULAP Act at P/S Sopore and was released on bail by the competent court of law. However, he continued his terror activities and did not mend his behavior persuading the Detaining authority to curb his activities to order detention of the detenue under the provisions of Public Safety Act.

6. Right of personal liberty is a most precious right guaranteed under the Constitution of India. A person is not to be deprived of his personal liberty, except in accordance with procedures established under law and the procedure as laid down in the case ‘ Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India , (1978 AIR SC 597)’, is to be just and fair. The personal liberty may be curtailed where a person faces a criminal charge or is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment. Where a person is facing trial on a criminal charge and is temporarily deprived of his personal liberty owing to criminal charge framed against him, he has an opportunity to defend himself and to be acquitted of the charge in case prosecution fails to bring home hi