NOORDIN BADANA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition to order No.09/DMB/PSA/2011 dated 30.05.2011, of District Magistrate, Baramulla respondent No.2 herein, whereby one Noordin Badana son of Chari Mohammad Badana resident of Chatergul Kangan at present Nishat Srinagar Tehsil Kangan District Ganderbal (herein after referred to as detenue) has been placed under preventive detention must succeed for the following reasons: -

(2.) THE Constitutional and Statutory safeguards, guaranteed to a person detained under preventive detention law, are meaningless unless and until the detenue is made aware of and furnished all the material that weighed with the Detaining Authority while making detention order. THE detention record reveals that none of the documents referred to in the detention order was ever supplied to the detenue. THE endorsement on the reverse of the detention order made by the Executing Officer Gh. Hassan SI No.8631/NGO P/S Uri, at the time of execution of detention order, does not make a reference to the documents in question and does not record that such documents were supplied to detenue at the time of execution of detention order or immediately thereafter.

(3.) ARTICLE 22(5) Constitution of India provides a precious and valuable right to a person detained under preventive detention law - J&K Public Safety Act 1978, to make a representation against his detention. It needs no emphasis that a detenue, on whom preventive detention order is slapped, is held in custody without a formal charge and a trial. The detenue is held in custody on a mere suspicion that his apprehended activities may be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or security of the State. ARTICLE 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Act, thus make it obligatory for Detaining Authority to provide detenue an earliest opportunity of making an effective and meaningful representation against his detention. The object is to enable the detenue to convince Detaining Authority and Government, as the case may be, that all apprehensions regarding his activities are grossly misplaced and his detention is unwarranted. To make the Constitutional and Statutory right available to detenue meaningful, it is necessary that detenue be informed with all possible clarity what is/are his apprehended activity/ies that persuaded Detaining Authority to make detention order. In case grounds of detention are vague, ambiguous and confusing, the detenue cannot be expected to make a representation against his detention.