Failure to communicate the decision on a detenu's representation against a preventive detention order violates fundamental procedural safeguards and vitiates the detention.

JUDGEMENT

PER OSWAL-J

1. The appellant came to be detained pursuant to order of detention bearing No.22/DMA/PSA/DET/2024 dated 20.05.2024, passed by the District Magistrate, Anantnag (respondent No. 2) in exercise of powers under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The appellant challenged the said order of detention by way of HCP No.242/2024, which, however, came to be dismissed by the learned Writ Court vide judgment dated 22.08.2025 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment”).

2. Being aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 22.08.2025, the appellant has assailed the same on the following grounds:

(i) That the learned writ court has failed to consider and properly appreciate the grounds urged by the appellant in the writ petition, thereby rendering the impugned judgment unsustainable in law.

(ii) That the learned Writ Court has failed to properly appreciate the contention of the appellant that the order of detention has been passed by respondent No.2 without due application of mind inasmuch as the grounds of detention are a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier, thereby vitiating the order of detention.

(iii) That the learned writ Court has failed to appreciate that the allegations set out in the grounds of detention had no nexus with the appellant and were fabricated by the police with the sole object of illegally detaining the appellant, thereby vitiating the impugned order of detention.

(iv) That it was specifically submitted before the learned Writ Court that the appellant was not furnished with the relevant material forming the basis of the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority, as reflected in the order of detention and the grounds of detention; however, the learned writ Court has failed to properly appreciate the said contention, thereby vitiating the impugned judgment.

(v) That the learned Writ Court has failed to appreciate that the appellant had submitted a representation against the order of detention, which was not considered and disposed of by the respondents in accordance with law and within a reasonable time, thereby violating the constitutional safeguards available to the appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had filed a representation against the order of detention to Government, but the same was not considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the appellant had earlier been proceeded against under Section 107 Cr.P.C., and upon his release, no fresh illegal activity was attributed to him so as to warrant his preventive detention under the Act.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the learned Writ Court has rightly considered the contentions of the appellant and after considering the same only, the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed. He has further argued that the procedural safeguards under the Constitution and the Act were duly followed while issuing and executing the order of detention.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

6. The record reveals that, pursuant to the dossier prepared by respondent No.3, a proposal was submitted to respondent No.2 for detaining the appellant under the Act on the ground that his activities were prejudicial to the security of the State/UT of J&K. Acting upon the said d