JUDGMENT

1. Preventive detention refers to the practice of detaining individuals without trial, to prevent them from committing potential offenses. Laws like the ‘Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act’ empower authorities to detain individuals based on perceived threats to Public Order or Security.

2. Through the medium of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged Order No. 12/DMA/PSA/DET/2025 dated 26.04.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Anantnag (‘Detaining Authority’ for short), whereby he has been taken into preventive custody with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State/UT of J&K.

3. The petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned order of detention on the grounds that the same has been passed in a mechanical manner in utter disregard of the constitutional and statutory safeguards. It has been contended that the impugned order of detention has been passed without application of mind and without drawing subjective satisfaction, simply on the basis of dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Anantnag; that the petitioner has not been informed as regards the period within which he was entitled to make a representation against the impugned order of detention to the Detaining Authority as well as to the Government; that the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the grounds of detention are without any basis and that the grounds of detention are replica of the Police dossier; and that the petitioner has not been furnished whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention. According to the petitioner, the allegations made in the impugned order of detention are absolutely false and frivolous and that the same are vague.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.2 in which it has been submitted that all the constitutional and statutory safeguards have been adhered to by the respondents while detaining the petitioner; that the whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has been furnished to the petitioner. According to the respondents, the petitioner has been actively involved in separatist and secessionist ideologies and his involvement with terrorist networks and narcotic trafficking reveals a dangerous nexus between terrorism and drug trade. His role in creating hideouts, providing material support to the terrorists and facilitating their clandestine movements poses a direct threat to the national security and public tranquility. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has been providing logistic support to the terrorists and he is also harbouring such elements. It has been submitted that the petitioner’s constant engagement in terror related activities have created disturbance, fear and atmosphere of insecurity in the UT of Jammu and Kashmir.

5. Thus, according to the respondents, the petitioner poses a great threat to the safety and security of the State/UT. It has also been submitted that the Detaining Authority has after examining the dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Anantnag, analysed the material and drawn its subjective satisfaction after due application of mind. It has also been submitted that contents of the material supplied to the petitioner have been read over and explained to him in Urdu/Kashmiri languages, which he fully understands.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has restricted his arguments only to three grounds. Firstly, that the petitioner has not been furnished whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention which has prevented him from making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention; secondly that the grounds of detention is a replica of the Police dossier which indicates that there has been non-application of mind on