JUDGMENT

1. Challenge in this petition has been thrown to a Detention Order No. DMB/PSA/11 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025 (‘impugned order’) passed by District Magistrate, Budgam-respondent No.2, vide which petitioner namely Nisar Ahmad Bhagat (‘the detenue’ for short) has been ordered to be detained and lodged in District Jail Jammu, under the provisions of The J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, in order to deter him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the ‘security of the State’.

1. The petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court to question the impugned detention order, inter-alia, on the ground that the grounds of detention being vague, no prudent man can make an effective representation against his detention; that the representation dated 02.06.2025 filed by the detenue has not been accorded any consideration; that the procedural safeguards prescribed under J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 and under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have not been followed; that neither any reference pertaining to the detention of the detenue has been made to the Advisory Board within prescribed period of limitation under PSA nor the Board has made any report with respect to sufficiency of the material; that the grounds of detention are unreasonable and suffer from non-application of mind; that the detenue has not been apprised of his right to make representation; that the detenue has not been served with dossier copy and the connected documents; that the grounds of detention were supplied to the detenue in a language not understandable or intelligible to him; that there is no nexus between the alleged prejudicial activity of the detenue and the security of the State, sought to be achieved by detention of the detenue.

2. The stand of the petitioner has been resisted by the other side. The District Magistrate in the counter affidavit is affront with the contention that no legal, fundamental or statutory right of the detenue has been infringed in the present case, as the respondents have complied with all the statutory and constitutional provisions and followed the requisite formalities before passing of the impugned detention order.

3. It is contention of the respondents that the detenue came to be detained under the provisions of PSA by virtue of the impugned detention order issued by District Magistrate, Budgam, after due adherence of statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees, as also keeping in mind the object of lawful preventive detention, which is preventive in nature and not punitive. The grounds of detention, order of detention and the relevant material relied upon by the detaining authority was furnished to the detenue within statutory period provided under Section 13 of PSA. In compliance to the order passed by the detaining authority, detention order/warrant came to be executed by the concerned police on 02.05.2025, by virtue of which the detenue was lodged in District Jail, Jammu. According to the respondents, the contents of the detention order/warrant and the grounds of detention were read over and explained to the detenue in the language, which he fully understands, and in lieu whereof the detenue subscribed his signatures on the execution report. It is also contended that the detenue was well informed about his right to make representation to the detaining authority or to the Government against his detention, however, he did not choose to do so. It is further contention of the respondents that the detention case of the detenue was referred to Advisory Board for its opinion, in terms of Section 15 of the PSA, and the Board, constituted under PSA, considered the material placed before it and opined that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenue and it was only after the report/opinion of the Advisory Board, the impugned detention order came to be confirmed by the Government vide order No. Home/PB-V/1018 of 2025 dated 23.05.2025.

4. On the factual front, it is contention of