JUDGMENT

1. District Magistrate, Srinagar-Respondent No.2 (for short ‘Detaining Authority’) in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 has passed the Detention Order No. DMS/PSA/97/2021 dated 07.12.2021 (for short ‘impugned order’), in terms whereof the detenue was ordered to be detained to prevent him from the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order.

1. The order of detention is challenged by the detenue through the medium of this petition, inter alia, on the grounds that the respondents have not followed due procedure of law while detaining the detenue under the preventive law which renders his detention illegal; that the illegal activities attributed to the detenue are all imaginary and based on surmises and are false, baseless and concocted; that the detenue was illegally implicated in FIR Nos. 56/2011 and 41/2021 under Section 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act; that the detaining authority has not applied its mind while preparing the grounds of detention and has acted as spokesman of the Police agencies and has framed the grounds of detention at their behest; that there is no cogent material to detain the detenue under the preventive law; that the satisfaction is illusory and not valid one; that after registration of FIR Nos. 56/2011 and 41/2021, there are no fresh allegations leveled against the detenue, therefore, the detention of the detenue is patently illegal and against the law and deserves to be quashed.

2. Respondents, pursuant to notice, have filed their reply affidavit, wherein it is stated that the order of detention is based on a reasonable prediction of future behavior of the detenue. The detenue’s anti-national and illegal activities have posed a serious threat to the maintenance of public order of the UT of J&K. It is submitted that the preventive detention is devised to afford protection to the Society and the object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept him before he does it and to prevent him from doing. It is further stated that any preventive measures, even if they involve some restraint or hardship upon individuals, do not contribute in any way the nature of punishment.

3. Learned counsel for the detenue has raised the plea of vagueness in the grounds of detention. It is being stated that the allegations leveled in the grounds of detention relate to the year 2011 and 2021 and those activities have no proximity with present time for the purpose of preventive detention unless any fresh activity is not attributed to the petitioner. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not mentioned in the impugned detention order that normal law was ever invoked before taking recourse to preventive detention law and that too was applied merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the detention order of the detenue. He contended that the detenue’s continuous anti-national and illegal activities has made it imperative to detain the detenue under the provisions of Public Safety Act and there were sufficient grounds available for such detention. It is further contended that the live link is still sustaining, as the detenue is still involved in the anti-national activities and the adverse reports led the sponsoring agency to recommend the detenue for preventive detention under the provisions of the Public Safety Act.

5. Heard, perused the material available on record and considered the same.

6. The allegations leveled against the detenue that he was involved in instigating disgruntled elements to resort to large scale violence and was indulged in illegal activities which are aimed to create law and order problems, is all vague and in such a situation the detenue would not be in a position to submit an effective and a meaningful representation before the detaini