Unexplained delay in deciding a detenu's representation and the use of vague, cryptic grounds lacking material particulars violate constitutional guarantees under Article 22(5) and statutory rights under the J&K Public Safety Act, rendering the detention order illegal.

Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full

JUDGMENT

1) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has challenged detention order bearing No.27/DMA/PSA/DET/2024 dated 24.10.2024, issued by District Magistrate, Anantnag, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, whereby the detenue, namely, Shahid Amin Ganai, has been placed under preventive detention so as to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the security of the UT.

2) It has been contended that the detaining authority, while passing the impugned order, has not followed the procedural safeguards as provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act. It has been submitted that impugned detention order has been passed without application of mind as the grounds of detention are vague, equivocal, obscure, indefinite and ambiguous, on which no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations. It has been further contended that whole of the material has not been provided to the petitioner and that the representation submitted by the petitioner against the impugned detention order has not been considered as the result of consideration has not been conveyed to him. It has also been contended that the grounds of detention are verbatim copy of the dossier.

3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have contended that the activities of the detenue have been found prejudicial to the security of the State. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention along with the material relied upon by the detaining authority were handed over to the detenue and the same were read over and explained to him. It has been further contended 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 also averred in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the order has been issued validly and legally. It has also been contended that the detention of the detenue has been ordered strictly in accordance with the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act. 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 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 following grounds:

(I) That representation of the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been considered by the respondents thereby violating his statutory and constitutional rights.

(II) That the grounds of detention are vague and cryptic, which prevented him from making an effective representation against his detention.

6) So far as the first ground of challenge is concerned, a perusal of the detention record reveals that the representation of the petitioner dated 20.11.2025 has been rejected by the Government and an intimation in this regard has been communicated by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Home Department, to the District Magistrate, Anantnag, in terms of communication No.Home/PB-V/513/2024/7591382 dated 27.01.2025. In the said communication, the respondents have admitted receipt of representa