PEER HISSAM UD DIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Peer Hissam-ud-din who is alleged to be notorious and staunch worker of MUF was detained vide detention order No. 218 dt. 8-6-1987 passed by the respondent No. 2. It was alleged that being an Advocate, the detenu remained active in creating contempt against Union of India by openly challenging the accession of the Jammu and Kashmir with Union of India He is further alleged to have created disaffection among various classes of people living in the State. Vide Annexure A being the grounds of detention, the District Magistrate, Baramulla, after levelling general allegations, informed the petitioner to the following effect:

(2.) The detention of the petitioner has been challenged on the grounds that the amendment made in the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, was ultra vires of the provisions of Constitution of India, the statutory protection against the preventive detention as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution as made applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir have been flouted. It is alleged that the detention order was never served on the detenu in accordance with the law and the documents mentioned in the grounds of detention were not supplied to him. The grounds of detention and the specific allegations made against the detenu were vague and indefinite. It is further submitted that certain allegations levelled in the grounds of detention do not stand the test of scrutiny which renders the detention of the detenu illegal. As the detention of Peer Hissam-ud-din is in contravention of the provisions of the Constitution of India, the same is prayed, to be quashed and the detenu released forthwith.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, it has been admitted that the detenu has been detained under the provisions of Public Safety Act. It is further submitted that the detention order has been confirmed but does not mention as to vide what Government order and on what date. It is submitted that the provisions of Public Safety Act are legal and intra vires of the Constitution. The grounds of detention are valid, legal and according to the Statute. It is claimed that the grounds of detention were supplied to the detenu along with relevant FIR on 18-5-1987 against proper receipt by the Dy. Superintendent Sub-Jail, Heeranagar which were explained to him in all the languages which he understood. It is alleged that the acts and statements detailed in the grounds of detention were sufficient to hold that the detenu was an anti-national element and responsible for creating disaffection in the minds of minority community which makes his detention imperative.