JUDGMENT

BRIEF FACTS.

1. Through the medium of the present Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashment of Detention Order No. 09/DMB/PSA/2025 dated 29.04.2025 passed by respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Baramulla under Section 8(a) of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short “PSA”), whereby detenue namely Tanveer Ahmad Mir S/o Abdul Qayoom Mir R/o Brath Kalan, Tehsil Bomai Zaingeer, District Baramulla, has been placed under preventive detention.

2. As per the detention record, the detenue is alleged to be an active Over Ground Worker affiliated with banned terrorist outfit Lashkar-e-Toiba and to have provided logistical support, shelter, transportation and assistance to terrorists operating in the area of Sopore and adjoining localities. It is further alleged that the detenue maintained contact with active terrorists and Pakistan-based handlers through encrypted communication applications and proxy networks.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned detention order is legally unsustainable and liable to be quashed as the same has been passed mechanically and without independent application of mind by the detaining authority.

4. It was contended that the grounds of detention are nothing but a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier submitted by the sponsoring agency with only cosmetic changes in language, thereby clearly demonstrating complete non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jai Singh and Ors. v. State of J&K, AIR 1985 SC 764.

5. Learned counsel further argued that the detenue has been deprived of his valuable constitutional right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India as the complete material relied upon by the detaining authority was not supplied to him, thereby disabling him from making an effective representation against the order of detention.

6. It was additionally submitted that the allegations leveled against the detenue are vague, bald and bereft of material particulars. According to the petitioner, the grounds of detention do not disclose specific details regarding the alleged activities, transportation, sheltering of terrorists or use of encrypted applications and, therefore, the grounds are too vague to sustain preventive detention.

7. It was further contended that the detenue was already facing criminal prosecution in FIR No. 203/2018 and, therefore, ordinary criminal law remedies were sufficient to deal with the matter. Learned counsel submitted that preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal prosecution.

8. Learned counsel also argued that there exists no live and proximate link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the order of detention and that the detention order has been passed casually and in routine manner.

9. It was additionally contended that the detenue was not supplied all relevant documents including statements recorded during investigation and copies of proceedings under Sections 107/151 Code of criminal procedure and corresponding provisions of BNSS, thereby prejudicing his right to make effective representation.

10. Reliance was also placed upon judgments in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1980 SC 849 and State of Maharashtra v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande, (2008) 3 SCC 613 to contend that personal liberty is sacrosanct and preventive detention laws must be strictly construed.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 was originally enacted under the constitutional framework applicable to the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir and, therefore, after enactment of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, the expression “Security of the State” could not have been substituted wi