Preventive detention cannot be based solely on past conduct; there must be a proximate link between the activities and the detention order, specifically requiring evidence of fresh prejudicial activities after the person's release to justify the order.

JUDGMENT

1) The petitioner, through the medium of the petition at hand, has impugned order of bearing No.36/DMB/PSA/ 2024 dated 15.07.2024, issued by District Magistrate, Baramulla, placing the detenue, namely, Bashir Ahmad Beigh under preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of UT of J&K.

2) In the petition, it has been contended that that the allegations/the grounds of detention are vague and mere assertions, on the basis of which no prudent man can make an effective representation. It has been contended that these allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and that the same have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It has been contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material which formed basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner. It has been further contended that previously the petitioner was placed under preventive detention pursuant to detention order No.111/DMB/PSA/ 2020 dated 21.10.2020 which was quashed by this Court in WP(Crl) No.171/2020 and the same was allowed by virtue of judgment dated 07.12.2021. It has been contended that without there being any fresh activities attributable to the petitioner, the impugned order has been issued on the identical grounds. It has also been contended that the alleged fresh activities attributed to the detenue are vague lacking in material particulars, on the basis of which the petitioner could not make an effective representation against the impugned order of detention.

3) The respondents have contested the petition by filing their reply affidavit, wherein it has been contended that the activities of the detenue are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State. It has been contended that the petitioner is involved in multiple FIRs and he has been at the forefront of implementing the agenda of subversive and anti-national organizations. It has been contended that after the release of petitioner from preventive detention, he was again found involved in the prejudicial activities resulting in issuance of impugned detention order; that whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority has been furnished to the detenue and contents of the same were read over and explained to him; that the detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention. It is further contended in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the impugned order has been issued strictly in accordance with law. The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.

4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the cases including the detention record.

5) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the impugned order, projected various grounds but his main thrust during the course of arguments was on the ground that the grounds of detention are vague and cryptic, which prevented him from making an effective representation against his detention.

6) Upon perusal of the detention record produced by learned counsel for the respondents, the grou