FAISAL AHMAD BHAT Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In exercise of powers under Sec. 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act'), respondent No.2 - District Magistrate Pulwama (for short 'detaining authority') has passed the Detention Order No. 43/DMP/PSA/22 dtd. 18/6/2022 (for short 'impugned order'), in terms whereof the detenue namely Faisal Ahmad Bhat, was ordered to be detained under the Act, in order to prevent him from resorting to activities prejudicial to the security of the State.

(2.) The detention of the detenue has been challenged inter alia on the grounds that the allegations leveled in the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations and passing of detention on such grounds is unjustified and unreasonable; that the relevant material has not been furnished to the detenue and whatever material was furnished to him, it was not possible to make a purposeful representation, thus, the right of the detenue under Article 22 of the Constitution stands violated; that the grounds of impugned detention order is a verbatim copy of the dossier and no other material has been considered by the detaining authority, which speaks volumes about non-application of mind on part of the detaining authority, which does not justify the preventive detention and the impugned order requires quashment.

(3.) Respondents, pursuant to notice, have filed their counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the order of detention was passed by the detaining authority after being satisfied on the basis of the material made available by the police; that it was necessary with a view to prevent the detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State, to place him under preventive detention. It is submitted that the detention of the detenue has been ordered, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act, observing the procedural safeguards prescribed under the provisions of the Act and the rights guaranteed to the detenue under the Constitution have strictly been followed in the instant case. It is further submitted that the grounds of detention transpire the activities of the detenue which, on the face of them, are highly prejudicial to the security of the State and, therefore, there was no option left to the detaining authority but to order detention of the detenue under the Act.