AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this petition for habeas corpus it has been alleged that the petitioner was a permanent resident of village Chajjala District Poonch"" in the
Jammu and Kashmir State and thus the petitioner was entitled to all fundamental rights laid down in the Constitution of India. It has been alleged
that the petitioner was detained and lodged in the Central Jail, Jammu, under the Public Safety Act, 1978, by virtue of an order dated 30121982
issued by the District Magistrate, Jammu. It has been claimed by the petitioner that the grounds of detention were all false and concocted by the
police concerned on the instigation of some influential person. The petitioner has denied that he was working as an enemy agent and has submitted
he may be released.
I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties with regard to this petition.
Mr. G.R. Asgar, Amicus Curie has referred me to a judgment reported in A. I. R. 1982 S. C. 1500 and has read extensively from the
judgment. He has, in particular, referred to para 10 of this judgment. The relevant portion of which is quoted :
All documents, statements and other materials incorporated in the grounds by reference and which have influenced the mind of the detaining
authority in arriving at the requisite subjective satisfaction must be furnished to the detenue along with the grounds or in any event not later than five
days ordinarily and in the exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing not later than 15 days from the date of his detention
and secondly, all such material must be furnished to him in a script or language which he understands and failure to do either of the two things
would amount to a breach of the two duties cast on the detaining authority under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution.
The learned C. G. A has also referred to this very Judgment of the Supreme Court and also to the last para of A. I. R. 1969 S. C. 323. I have
considered the arguments and have perused the relevant portions read before me from the above judgments.
In my view the judgment referred to by the amicus curae was applicable to this case as no copies of the documents appear to have been handed
over to the petitioner in the language he understood i. e. Gojri or Urdu. As such it is felt by the court that his detention was illegal and it is,
therefore, ordered that the detenue should be immediately released from the detention.
The petition is accordingly allowed.