JAVID GULL Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In terms of Detention Order No. DMB/PSA/16/2022 dtd. 11/5/2022 (for short 'the impugned order') passed by District Magistrate, Budgam-respondent No.2, the petitioner namely Javid Gull S/O Gh. Mohammad Sofi R/O Brarigund Chadoora Budgam (for short 'detenue') was ordered to be detained under preventive custody in terms of Sec. -8 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act') with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State.

(2.) The impugned order has been questioned/challenged on the grounds taken in the instant petition by the detenue through his father. The plea of the petitioner is that the detenue, in terms of the impugned order, has been detained under the Act without any justification and the allegations leveled in terms of the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It is pleaded that the order of detention had not been executed in tune with the Act and the directions of the Detaining authority, which in turn had deprived the detenue from making an effective and meaningful representation against his detention. Another plea of the detenue is that he has not been provided the relevant material/documents relied upon by the Detaining authority. The detenue, post execution, has not been informed that he can make a representation before the Detaining authority, therefore, a valuable right of the detenue stands defeated. Non-supply of translated copies of relevant documents as well as non-explanation of the documents/material in the language known to the detenue has made the detention illegal and unconstitutional.

(3.) Pursuant to notice, respondents have filed their counter affidavit, vehemently, resisting the petition. It is contended that detaining a person under the provisions of Public Safety Act is always preventive in nature and its sole aim is to prevent a person from pursuing anti-national/anti-social activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of security of State, etc. In the instant case there is enough material against the detenue which is highly suggestive of the fact that the normal law of the land is not sufficient to prevent him from continuing with his anti-national activities and, it is evident that the detenue is highly motivated and is not likely to desist from anti-national and unlawful activities.