FAYAZ AHMAD MIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE to order No.41/DMB/PSA/2011 dated 02.11.2011 of District Magistrate, Baramulla respondent No.2 herein, whereby one Shri Fayaz Ahmad Mir son of Mohammad Jamal Mir resident of Warapora Sopore Tehsil Sopore District Baramulla (herein after referred to as detenue) has been placed under preventive detention, must succeed for following reasons:

(2.) 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 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 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.

(3.) VIEWED thus, the petition is allowed and detention order No.41/ DMB/PSA/2011 dated 02.11.2011, passed by the District Magistrate, Baramulla respondent No.2, directing detention of Shri Fayaz Ahmad Mir son of Mohammad Jamal Mir resident of Warapora Sopore Tehsil Sopore District Baramulla, quashed.