ZAHOOR AHMAD LONE Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Habeas Corpus Petition, petitioner challenges the Detention Order No. 60/DMB/PSA/2022 dtd. 27/6/2022 passed by District Magistrate Baramulla, under Clause (a) of Sec. 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short the 'Act'), directing preventive detention of the petitioner Zahoor Ahmad Lone (for short 'detenue'), in the interest of security of the State.

(2.) The preventive detention of the detenue is challenged on various grounds inter alia that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention on the basis of dossier and other connected documents submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police Sopore. No relevant documents/material were provided to the detenue depriving him of a valuable right of making an effective and meaningful representation. It is further contended that normal law was never invoked nor it is mentioned anywhere in the grounds of detention that the normal law was ever invoked and the detaining authority has made this assumption without any basis. On this ground also the order suffers from non-application of mind and deserves to be quashed. Furthermore, it is stated that the detenue was incapacitated in filing a representation as the grounds of detention are hyper technical in nature i.e. not in a language which could be understood by the detenue. It is being stated that being 8th pass only, it is not possible for him to understand such a hyper technical language.

(3.) Pursuant to notice, respondents have filed their reply, asserting therein that the detenue came to be detained under the provisions of the Act of 1978 validly and legally by virtue of the impugned detention order. While doing so, all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority, indisputably keeping in mind the very object of law of preventive detention being not punitive but only preventive. The detaining authority was of the opinion that the normal law has not proved deterrent and the detenue has not mended his subversive activities. Since the activities of the detenue were highly prejudicial to the security of the State and there was every likelihood that he will again indulge in same activities, it was necessary to prevent him from acting in such activities, accordingly, he has been detained strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act.