Vague and non-specific grounds of detention violate Articles 14, 21, and 22(5) of the Constitution, as they prevent the detenue from making an effective representation, thereby vitiating the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and rendering the detention order illegal.

JUDGMENT

1) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has challenged detention order bearing No.DMS/PSA/30/2025 dated 11.06.2025, issued by District Magistrate, Srinagar, whereby the detenue, namely, Ubaid Gulzar Pandith, has been placed under preventive detention so as to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

2) It has been contended by the petitioner that the 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 their illegal action of detaining the detenue. It has been submitted that impugned detention order has been passed without application of mind as the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and stale, on the basis of which no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material has not been provided to the petitioner. It has been further urged that there has been non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order as the detenue was already admitted to bail in one of the FIRs mentioned in the grounds of detention but the said fact is not mentioned in the grounds of detention and that the representation submitted by the petitioner against the impugned detention order has not been considered as no result of consideration has been conveyed to him.

3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have contended that the detenue was constantly in contact with the anti-national/anti-social elements and was greatly influenced by radical ideology and started instigating local youth to indulge in criminal/anti-national and anti-social activities. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are precise, proximate, pertinent and relevant and there is no vagueness or staleness therein. It has been contended that the material that formed basis of the grounds of detention has been furnished to the detenue and he was informed that he has a right to make a representation to the detaining authority as also to the government. It has been contended that the impugned order has been issued strictly in accordance with the law governing the field. Respondents have produced the detention record in support of the assertions made in the counter affidavit.

4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.

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, cryptic and lacking in material particulars, which prevented the detenue from making an effective representation against his detention

6) A perusal of the above quoted extracts of the grounds of detention clearly shows that the same are vague lacking in material particulars. In the grounds of detention, there is no mention of the particulars of the places and the identity of the alleged anti-national and anti-social elements, with whom the petitioner was in contact. The particulars of the period when the detenue is alleged to have met these anti-national and anti-social elements are also not mentioned in the grounds of detention. Thus, the grounds, being vague la