LAWS(J&K)-2011-9-9

MOHAMMAD AHSAN LONE Vs. STATE OF J&K

Decided On September 29, 2011
MOHAMMAD AHSAN LONE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE to order No.03/DMB/PSA/2011 dated 21.04.2011, of District Magistrate, Baramulla respondent No.2 herein, whereby one Shri Mohd Ahsan son of Wali Mohd resident of Nadihal Tehsil Sopore District Baramulla (herein after referred to as detenue) has been placed under preventive detention, must succeed for following reasons:

(2.) IT is Detaining Authority, who has to go through the reports and other inputs received by him from concerned police and other agencies and on such perusal arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the subject is to be placed under preventive detention. IT is thus for the Detaining Authority to formulate grounds of detention and satisfy itself that grounds of detention so formulated warrant passing of preventive detention. The detention order, for the said reasons, exhibits total non-application of mind by the detaining authority. The detention order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

(3.) IN the instant case the detenue is alleged to be worker of LeT outfit. The words/expressions like JEI and LOC are too vague to make the detenue aware of the exact accusations levelled against him. The detaining authority has not to work on assumptions and presumptions that whatever acronyms it is aware of must be necessarily known to the detenue. The detenue is alleged to have been in contact with Abdullah Uni, of LeT outfit. The detenue was not provided the particulars of Abdullah Uni and the detenue thus has been prevented from explaining that the detenue had nothing to do with Abdullah Uni. The detenue is also alleged to have been providing logistic support and information about movement of police/security forces to the militants. The grounds of detention as also detention record do not reveal that the identification of militants, to whom the logistic help and information regarding movement of police/security forces was being allegedly provided/transmitted by the detenue, has been disclosed to detenue. The detenue along with his associates is also alleged to be responsible for motivating the local youths to join militancy. The detenue is not informed with sufficient clarity the exact allegations levelled and furnished the particulars of his associates as also youths, who are stated to have been motivated by the detenue and his unidentified associates to join the militancy. The detenue, in absence of such details, could not be expected to have been in a position to give his side of story and persuade the detaining authority and other respondents that the allegations against the detenue were bereft of any basis. To sum up, the grounds of detention that constitute basis for the detention order in question are ambiguous, vague, uncertain and hazy. A person of ordinary prudence would not be in a position to explain his stand in reply to the grounds of detention detailed by detaining authority. The detenue has been kept guessing about the facts and events that weighed with detaining authority and prompted him to record subjective satisfaction regarding sufficiency of the material to warrant preventive detention of the detenue. These are only few instances to illustrate that the grounds of detention are vague and ambiguous and bound to keep the detenue guessing about what really was intended to be conveyed by the detaining authority. It is well settled law that even where one of the grounds relied upon by the Detaining Authority to order detention is vague and ambiguous, Constitutional and Statutory right of the detenue to make a representation against his detention are taken to have been violated. Reference in this regard may be made to Dr.Ram Krishan Versus The State of Delhi and others, AIR, 1953,; Chaju Ram Versus State of JAMMU AND KASHMIR, AIR 1971 SC 263; Mohd Yousuf Rather Versus State of JAMMU AND KASHMIR, AIR 1979 SC 1925; and Syed Aasiya INdrabi Versus State of JAMMU AND KASHMIR and others, 2009 (I) SLJ 2009 219.