ALTAF AHMAD BHAT Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) District Magistrate Kupwara- respondent No.2 (hereinafter for short 'detaining authority') in exercise of powers conferred on him under Sec. 8(1)(a)(i) read with Clause (ii) of sub Sec. (2) of Sec. 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, passed the detention order No. 19-DMK/PSA of 2021 dtd. 4/12/2021 (for short 'impugned order'), in terms whereof the petitioner Altaf Ahmad Bhat (for short 'the detenue') has been detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State. The said detention order has been challenged through the medium of instant petition, allegedly being in breach of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It is being pleaded in the petition that the detenue was arrested by the police without any justification and was placed in illegal confinement. It is being contended that the allegations/grounds of detention are vague and mere assertions of the detaining authority and no prudent man can make an effective representation against these allegations. Furthermore, it is stated that the allegations whose mention is made in 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. In addition, it is stated that the detaining authority has not prepared the grounds of detention by itself, whileas, same is replica of the police dossier. Also it is being pleaded that the detaining authority has not furnished the material and other connected documents, relied upon, to the detenue to enable him to make an effective representation; that the detenue has also not been informed that within what time-frame he can make representation against his detention, which clearly shows violation of the right of the detenue guaranteed in terms of the Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Respondents in their counter affidavit/reply have stated that the grounds of detention are precise, proximate, pertinent and relevant. There is no vagueness or staleness in the grounds coupled with definite indications as to the impact thereof, which has been precisely stated in the grounds of detention. Further it is contended that the grounds of detention give complete account of the activities of the detenue which on the face of it are highly prejudicial for maintenance of security of the State, as such, there was no option left but to order detention of the detenue under Public Safety Act.