SEEMA Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged order of detention bearing No. PITNDPS 43 of 2023 dtd. 27/9/2023 issued by respondent No. 3-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the Detaining Authority), whereby the petitioner, Seema alias Khairi W/O Pal Singh R/O Rajeev Nagar, Narwal, District Jammu has been taken into preventive custody with a view to prevent her from committing any of the acts within the meaning of illicit traffic as defined in Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short the PITNDPS Act)

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of detention on the grounds that the respondents, while passing the impugned order of detention, have not followed the constitutional and statutory safeguards as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, the copies of the FIRs and statements of the witnesses along with other connected material have not been supplied to her, which has deprived her from making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention. It has been further contended that though representation on behalf of the petitioner was submitted, but the same has not been considered by the respondents, thereby making the impugned order of detention unsustainable in law. It has also been submitted that the detenue is an illiterate person as such, the respondents were under a constitutional and legal duty to provide to her translated version of the grounds of detention and other material and to explain the same to her in her native language. It has been contended that no affidavit in this regard has been filed by the Executing Authority. It has been further contended that while passing the impugned order of detention, the Detaining Authority has not spelt out any compelling reasons for doing so.

(3.) The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing counter affidavit thereto. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that the petitioner has been involved in a number of cases relating to offences under the NDPS Act and after getting bail, she was again indulging in similar kinds of activities which compelled the respondents to pass the impugned order of detention. It has been further submitted that the Executing Officer has been provided whole of the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority, while passing the impugned order of detention and the same has been explained to her in Hindi as well as in Dogri languages. It has been further submitted that the representation made by the petitioner was forwarded to respondent No. 2 for further appropriate action. In order to lend support of their contentions, the respondents have produced the detention record.