1) Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality of the order of detention bearing No. 32/DMP/PSA/25 dated 07.05.2025 issued by respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Pulwama, whereby the petitioner has been placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State.

2) The order of detention (supra) has been impugned on the following grounds:

(a) That the detenue was not provided all the relevant material and the documents relied upon by the detaining authority and the translated version thereof, thereby denying him a real and meaningful opportunity to make an effective representation against his detention;

(b) That the impugned order has been passed on the basis of stale and irrelevant grounds which are lacking proximate and live link with the detenue’s current conduct and the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind;

(c) That the grounds of detention are vague, indefinite and ambiguous;

(d) That there is an unexplained and unreasonable delay between the alleged activities and the passing of the detention order, which breaks the live and proximate link required between the incident and the order of detention.

3) The respondents have filed the counter affidavit stating therein that the activities of the petitioner have been found to be prejudicial to the security of the State and he has been taken into preventive custody as per the requirement of law. The order of detention was executed on 08.05.2025 by SI Mohd. Shafi and detenue was handed over to the Assistant Superintendent District Jail Kathua. The contents of grounds of detention and detention warrant/order were read over to the detenue. The detenue was informed about his right to submit representation against his detention. The representation filed by the detenue was considered and rejected by the detaining authority on 20.05.2025 and the result of such consideration was conveyed to the detenue. Furthermore, another representation was filed on behalf of the detenue before the Home Department, which has also been rejected on 06.06.2025. It has been stated that the grounds urged by the petitioner in the petition are legally misconceived, untenable and without any merit. It has been further averred that the grounds of detention are precise, proximate, relevant and there is no vagueness or staleness in the same. It is stated that the impugned order of detention has been passed by the competent authority strictly in accordance with the provisions of law and whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has been provided to the petitioner.

4) In order to lend support to the contentions raised in the counter affidavit, the respondents have produced the detention record.

5) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was not involved in any offence and despite that, on vague grounds, he has been detained in terms of the impugned order of detention. He has also argued that the detaining authority has failed to establish any live or proximate link between the activities of petitioner and the order of detention.

6) Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the detaining authority, after perusing the dossier, has recorded its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the state and the grounds of detention cannot be termed as vague as the detaining authority has