Preventive detention is a precautionary measure to intercept potential harm. Judicial review is limited to the procedural compliance and administrative subjective satisfaction, without substituting the court's view for that of the competent authority on the necessity of detention.

JUDGMENT

1. Vide detention Order No. 05/DMP/PSA/25 dated 30.04.2025 (for short ‘impugned order’) passed by respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Pulwama 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 the State’.

2. Through the medium of the present petition, petitioner is seeking 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. Further plea of the detenue is that he 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 was prayed to quash the impugned order for the afore-stated grounds.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Pulwama, 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 public order/security of the State. In the instant case 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, perused the detention record produced by learned counsel for the respondents and considered.

5. Perusal of the detention record would indicate that the detenue was earlier arrested in a case registered vide FIR No.39/2020 under sections 120-B, 307 IPC, 4/5 Explosive Substance Act, 7/25 Arms Act and 13, 18, 39 UA(P) Act at P/S Litter and was released on bail on 07.05.2022 by the competent court of law. Thereafter, again the detenue was kept under preventive measures on 19.09.2024 and 27.04.2025 under section 126/170 of BNSS, for his involvement in anti-national activities. The aforestated reasons persuaded 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