1 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR … HCP No. 367/2024 Reserved on: 08.11.2025 Pronounced on: 03.12.2025 Junaid Ahmad Ganie Aged 25 years, S/o Mushtaq Ahmad Ganie R/o Reshinagar Shopian, Tehsil Shopian District Shopian, …….Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Sheikh Manzoor, Advocate Versus 1. Union Territory of J&K through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/ Jammu 2. District Magistrate, Shopian 3. Superintendent of Police, Shopian 4. Superintendent , District Jail, Baramulla ………Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy. AG with Ms. Nowbahar Khan, Assisting Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE JUDGEMENT 1. Through the medium of this petition, Order No. 194/DMS/PSA/2024 dated 12.09.2024 (impugned detention order) passed by District Magistrate, Shopian – respondent no. 2, (for short „detailing authority‟) whereby detenu, namely, Junaid Ahmad Ganie S/o Mushtaq Ahmad Ganie R/o Reshinagar Shopian, Tehsil Shopian District Shopian, has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the UT/Country, is sought to be quashed and directing his lodgment in District Jail, Baramulla on the grounds made mention of therein. 2. The case set up by the petitioner, in the petition, is that the detenu has been made a political victim as his father has paid an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- to one Mohammad Yousuf Bhat after obtaining loan from J&K Bank, Shopian for the purposes of Solar installation at his house, however, on the failure of the said political activist who is associated with a National Political Party as District President could neither install the said Solar Plant nor has paid the money back, but with the connivance of police has got booked the detenu under the provision of Public Safety Act . It is further contended that the respondents have passed impugned detention order against the detenu mechanically without application of 2 mind as detenu is not involved in any case or FIR and the allegations are imaginary without any basis or material record, It is also stated in grounds of detention that normal law has not been sufficient to detain detenu, but as a matter of fact that normal law has never been invoked nor it is mentioned in grounds of detention that normal law was invoked, inasmuch as detaining authority has mentioned various allegations in grounds of detention, however, no specific allegation has been given regarding detenu in grounds of detention, not even an iota of connection is given in grounds of detention connecting detenu with the allegations, inasmuch as the grounds of detention are verbatim and replica of dossier of activities and there is no independent application of mind by the detaining authority which passing the impugned detention order. The material relied upon by detaining authority is stated to have not been furnished to detenu 3. Respondents have filed reply affidavit, insisting therein that the activities indulged in by detenu are highly prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory and, therefore, his remaining at large is a threat to the security of Union Territory of J&K. The activities narrated in the grounds of detention have been reiterated in the reply affidavit filed by respondents. The factual averments that detenu was not supplied with relevant material relied upon in the grounds of detention have been refuted. It is insisted that all the relevant material, which has been relied upon by the detaining authority, was provided to the detenu at the time of execution of warrant. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I have perused the detention record produced by the learned counsel for respondents and considered the matter. 5. The main grounds on which the detention is sought to be quashed are that the grounds of detention are vague, indefinite, cryptic and do not mention any activity or name of any person with whom the detenu would have caused the disruption of the public order resulting threat to security of the State, inasmuch as the material particulars of the shooters/sympathizers of banned organization TRF, as mentioned in the grounds of detention, have not been given, which prevented him from making an effective representation against his detention. Further, the allegations made in the grounds of detention have no nexus with detenu and detaining authority has not given any reasonable justification to pass impugned order of detention. He has vehemently argued that the material relied upon including dossier by the detaining authority to pass detention order has not been furnished to the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation 3 against his detention, as a consequence of which impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 6. Taking into account the rival contentions of parties and submissions made by learned counsel for parties, it would be relevant to go through the detention record produced by counsel for respondents. The detention record, inter alia, contains “Execution Report” and “Receipt of detention Papers”. It would be advantageous to reproduce relevant portion of “Execution Report” hereunder: “Copy of warrant, Notice, grounds of detention and other allied documents (Total 09 Leaves) handed over to the above said detune…” 7. It would also be appropriate to reproduce relevant portion of “Receipt of Detention Papers” herein: “……… the Grounds of detention, Notice/Letter addressed to the detenu/other relevant papers of detention have been served to the detenu………. at the time of execution of PSA warrant today on 17.09.2024 consisting of four (09) leaves.….” 8. Thus, it is unambiguously clear and evident from perusal of Execution Report and Receipt of grounds of detention that only nine leaves have been given to detenu. 9. Perusal of impugned detention order reveals that on the basis of dossier placed before detaining authority by Senior Superintendent of Police, Shopian, vide no. CS/D-2/202416296 dated 10.09.2024, detaining authority was satisfied that with a view to prevent detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, it was necessary to detain him under necessary provisions of law. So, it is on the basis of dossier and other connected material/documents that impugned detention order has been passed by detaining authority. The grounds of detention, when looked into, gives reference to various alleged activities of detenu that appears to have weighed with detaining authority, while making detention order. The detention record, as noted above, does not indicate copies of dossier and other connected material was ever supplied to detenu, on the basis whereof impugned detention order has been passed. The aforesaid material, thus, assumes importance in the facts and circumstances of the case. It needs no emphasis, that detenu cannot be expected to make a meaningful exercise of his Constitutional and Statutory rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, unless and until the material on which detention order is based, is supplied to him. It is only after detenu has all the said material available that he can make an effort to 4 convince detaining authority and thereafter the Government that their apprehensions vis-à-vis his activities are baseless and misplaced. If detenu is not supplied the material, on which the detention order is based, he will not be in a position to make an effective representation against his detention order. The failure on the part of the detaining authority to supply the material, relied at the time of making the detention order to the detenu, renders the detention order illegal and unsustainable. In this regard I may draw support from the law laid down in the cases of Thahira Haris Etc. Etc. v. Government of Karnataka, AIR 2009 SC 2184; Union of India v. Ranu Bhandari, 2008, Cr. L. J. 4567; Dhannajoy Dass v. District Magistrate, AIR, 1982 SC 1315; Sofia Gulam Mohd Bham v. State of Maharashtra and others AIR 1999 SC 3051; and Syed Aasiya Indrabi v. State of J&K & ors, 2009 (I) S.L.J 219. 10. The Supreme Court in Abdul Latief Abdul Wahab Sheikh v. B.K. Jha, 1987 (2) SCC 22 has held that it is only the procedural requirements, which are the only safeguards available to the detenu, that is to be followed and complied with as the Court is not expected to go behind the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. In the present case, the procedural requirements, as discussed above, have not been followed and complied by the respondents in letter and spirit and resultantly, the impugned detention needs to be quashed. 11. It may be appropriate to mention that perusal of grounds of detention reveals that grounds of detention are vague and ambiguous, and do not refer to any date, month or year of the activities, which have been attributed to detenu. Detention in preventive custody on the basis of such vague and ambiguous grounds of detention cannot be justified. It may not be out of place to mention here that preventive detention is largely precautionary and is based on suspicion. The Court is ill-equipped to investigate into circumstances of suspicion on which such anticipatory action must be largely based. The nature of the proceeding is incapable of objective assessment. The matters to be considered by the detaining authority are whether the person concerned, having regard to his past conduct judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and other relevant material, is likely to act in a prejudicial manner as contemplated by the provisions of the law and, if so, whether it is necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from so acting. These are not the matters susceptible of objective determination, and they could not have been intended to be judged by objective standards. They are essentially the matters which have to be administratively determined for the purpose of taking administrative action. Their determination is, therefore, 5 deliberately and advisedly left by the Legislature to the subjective satisfaction of detaining authority which, by reason of its special position, experience and expertise, would be best suited to decide them. Thus, the Constitutional imperatives of Article 22(5) and the dual obligation imposed on the authority making the order of preventive detention, are twofold: (1) The detaining authority must, as soon as may be, i.e. as soon as practicable, after the detention order is passed, communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order of detention has been made, and (2) the detaining authority must afford the detenu the earliest opportunity of making the representation against the order of detention, i.e. to be furnished with sufficient particulars to enable him to make a representation which, on being considered, may obtain relief to him. The inclusion of an irrelevant or non-existent ground, among other relevant grounds, is an infringement of the first of the rights and the inclusion of an obscure or vague ground, among other clear and definite grounds, is an infringement of the second of the rights. In either case there is an invasion of the constitutional rights of the detenu entitling him to approach the Court for relief. The reason why the inclusion of even a simple irrelevant or obscure ground, among several relevant and clear grounds, is an invasion of the detenu‟s constitutional right is that the Court is precluded from adjudicating upon the sufficiency of the grounds, and it cannot substitute its objective decision for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Even if one of the grounds or reasons, which led to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, is non-existent or misconceived or irrelevant, the order of detention would be invalid. Where the order of detention is founded on distinct and separate grounds, if any one of the grounds is vague or irrelevant the entire order must fall. The satisfaction of detaining authority being subjective, it is impossible to predicate whether the order would have been passed in the absence of vague or irrelevant data. A ground is said to be irrelevant when it has no connection with the satisfaction of the authority making the order of detention. Irrelevant grounds, being taken into consideration for making the order of detention, are sufficient to vitiate it. One irrelevant ground is sufficient to vitiate the order as it is not possible to assess, in what manner and to what extent, that irrelevant ground operated on the mind of the appropriate authority, and contributed to his satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order or security of the State. Reference in this regard is made to Mohd. Yousuf Rather v. State of J&K and others, AIR 1979 SC 1925; and Mohd. Yaqoob v. State of J&K &ors, 2008 (2) JKJ 255 [HC] 6 12. Based on the above discussion, the petition is disposed of and Detention Order no. 194/DMS/PSA/2024 dated 12.09.2024, issued against Junaid Ahmad Ganie S/o Mushtaq Ahmad Ganie R/o Reshinagar Shopian, Tehsil Shopian District Shopian, is quashed. As a corollary, respondents are directed to set the detenu at liberty forthwith provided he is not required in any other case. Disposed of. 13. Detention record be returned to counsel for respondents (Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge Srinagar 03.12.2025 (Qazi Amjad, Jt.Reg/Secy.) Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No QAZI AMJAD YOUSUF I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 08.12.2025 14:44