Non-consideration or unexplained delay in considering a detenue's representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India vitiates the detention order and renders the continued detention illegal.

JUDGMENT

1. In exercise of powers under Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short ‘the Act’), respondent No.2 - District Magistrate Anantnag (for short ‘detaining authority’) passed Detention Order No. 23/DMA/PSA/DET/2025 dated 16.05.2025 (for short ‘impugned order’), in terms whereof the petitioner Tariq Ahmad Rah (for short ‘the detenue’) was ordered to be detained under the Act in order to deter him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of ‘Public Order’ in the UT of J&K.

2. The detenue through the medium of this petition has challenged his detention on the grounds, inter alia, that the allegations leveled in the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent, as such, no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations and passing of detention on such grounds is unjustified and unreasonable; that the detenue was arrested by Bijbehara Police in the cases registered as FIR No.09/2025 under section 420 IPC and FIR No.11/2025 under sections 420 and 506 IPC without any specific reason, however, he was granted bail in the said cases; that the detenue was detained under the provisions of Public Safety Act vide impugned detention order without throwing challenge to the bail order granted in aforesaid two FIRs; that the detenue submitted a representation to the detaining authority as also to the Government for his release, pleading that he is a law abiding citizen and has not committed any act which warrants his detention under the provisions of PSA; that neither representation filed by the detenue was considered nor was he produced before the Advisory Board for providing him an opportunity of being heard so that he could prove his innocence; that the relevant material has not been furnished to the detenue and whatever material was furnished to him, it was not possible to make a purposeful representation, thus, the right of the detenue under Article 22 of the Constitution stands violated; that the detenue has filed representation, post-detention, but the same has not been considered till date; that because of non-consideration of his representation, the detention order slapped upon him is liable to be quashed.

3. Respondents have filed their reply/counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the order of detention was passed by the detaining authority after being satisfied on the basis of the material available including the dossier submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police Anantnag, that it was necessary with a view to prevent the detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order, to place the detenue under preventive detention; that the detention of the detenue has been ordered strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the procedural safeguards prescribed under the provisions of the Act and the rights guaranteed to the detenue under the Constitution have strictly been followed in the instant case; that the grounds of detention transpire the activities of the detenue which, on the face of them, are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order of the UT of J&K, therefore, there was no option left to the detaining authority but to order detention of the detenue under the Act.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties perused the detention record as made available and considered the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued t