AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality of the order of detention bearing No. DMS/PSA/21/2025 dated 07.05.2025 issued by respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Srinagar.
The order of detention (supra) has been impugned on the following grounds:
That the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law as the detaining authority has failed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner against his detention.
That the grounds of detention are vague, ambiguous, bereft of details and based on bald assertions, besides being non-existent and based on surmises and conjectures.
That the respondent No.2 has not provided all the material relied upon by him while passing the impugned order of detention.
That the petitioner is not conversant with English language and the non-supply of the translated grounds of detention and other material has deprived the petitioner of his right to make effective representation.
That the detaining authority has not applied its mind while formulating the grounds of detention as the grounds of detention are the Xerox copy of the dossier.
The respondents have filed the response stating therein that the petitioner was constantly in contact with some people who encouraged him to engage in anti-national activities. The detenue being a hardcore active entity in the areas, posed a threat to the locality including educational institutions, business establishments and government offices. The detenue was deeply influenced by radical ideology and came into contact with active terrorists and OGWs of banned outfit. The detenue was providing logistic support to the banned terrorist organization. He was bound down under Section 126/170 BNSS and 107/151 Cr.P.C for his involvement in anti-national/unlawful activities and, accordingly, the police prepared the dossier and while finding that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the security of the State, forwarded the same with the record to the detaining authority with the recommendation to order his preventive detention. Thereafter, the impugned order of detention was passed in order to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The detention warrant was executed through concerned police on 11.05.2025, and the detenu was handed over to the Assistant Superintendent, District Jail Udhampur. The contents of the detention warrant were read over to him in his own language which he understood, and he was also informed that he has a right to make a representation to the detaining authority as also to the government. It is also stated the material forming basis of the grounds of detention was furnished to the petitioner against proper receipt. It is further stated that the impugned order of detention has been passed strictly in accordance with law governing the field.
Heard and perused the record.
The first contention raised by the petitioner is that the grounds of detention are vague, bereft of necessary details, and, as such, on these vague grounds, he could not have been detained.
In the grounds of detention, it is stated that the petitioner was in constant contact with some people who encouraged him to engage in anti-national activities. It has also been stated in the grounds of detention that the petitioner has instigated youth thereby creating law and order problems in the area. It is further stated that the petitioner came into contact with active terrorists and OGWs of the banned outfit and is providing logistic support to the terrorists.
The aforesaid allegations, prima facie, are vague and bereft of necessary particulars as to when the petitioner came in contact with the people, active terrorists and OGWs of banned outfit, who encouraged him to engage in anti-national activities, who were the youth whom the petitioner instigated to create law and order problem in the area. The particulars of the active terrorists of banned outfit, whom the petitioner provided logistic support are also not mentioned in the grounds of detention. Further, the extracts of patrol books of 29.04.25 (wrongly mentioned as 29.04.2024), 09.04.2025 and 26.03.2025 do not contain any illegal activity attributed to the petitioner.
The petitioner is right in submitting that the order of detention has been passed on vague grounds. Thus, the grounds, being vague and lacking in material particulars, deprived the petitioner of his right to make effective representation against his detention. Therefore, there has been violation of constitutional guarantees envisaged under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on judgment of the Supreme court in “Jahangirkhan Fazalkhan Pathan V. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad and another” reported as (1989) 3 SCC 590, where in it has been held that the order of detention passed on vague grounds deprives the petitioner of his right to make an effective representation against the order of detention.
From the above analysis of the law, it is manifest that vagueness of grounds of detention strikes at the root of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority thereby vitiating the order of detention. On this ground alone, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.
For the afore-stated reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned detention order is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner from the preventive custody forthwith, provided he is not required in connection with any other case.
The detention record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents.