HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR … HCP No. 158/2024 Reserved on: 22.05.2025 Pronounced on: 29.05.2023 Muneeb Majeed Wani, aged 20 Years, S/o Abdul Majeed Wani R/o Gopal Pora, D. H. Pora , District Kulgam …….Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Wajid Haseeb, Advocate Versus 1. Union Territory of J&K through Principal Secretary, Home Department , J&K Govt. Civil Sectt. Srinagar/Jammu 2. District Magistrate, Kulgam 3. Sr. Superintendent Kulgam ………Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Ilyas Laway, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE JUDGEMENT 1. Through the medium of this writ petition, Order No.15/DMK/ PSA/2024 dated 16.04.2024, passed by District Magistrate, Kulgam (for short “detaining authority”) whereby detenu, namely, Muneeb Majeed Wani S/o, Abdul Majeed Wani, R/o Gopal Pora, D. H. Pora , District Kulgam, has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State is sought to be quashed and the detenu set at liberty on the grounds made mention of therein. 2. The main grounds on which the detention is sought to be quashed are that the grounds of detention are vague, indefinite, cryptic, inasmuch as the detaining authority has not attributed any specific allegation against the detenu; that the detaining authority has not furnished the material including dossier, relied upon by it, to detenu to enable him to make an effective representation by giving his version of facts attributed to him and make an attempt to dispel the apprehensions nurtured by detaining authority concerning involvement of detenu in alleged activities; that representation was made by the father of detenu to the respondents for releasing the detenu, 2 yet the same was neither considered and decided by respondents nor detenu was produced before the Advisory Board for providing him an opportunity of being heard so that he could explain to the members of the Board that detenu is innocent and his order of detention deserves to be revoked and he be set at liberty. 3. Respondents have filed reply affidavit, insisting therein that the activities indulged in by detenu are highly prejudicial to the security of the State and, therefore, his remaining at large is a threat to the security of the State. 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 and considered the matter. I have gone through the detention record produced by counsel for respondents. 5. Though various submissions have been made by counsel for petitioner, yet intriguingly an important aspect of the matter has been brought before this Court during the course of advancement of arguments. He has invited attention of this Court to impugned order of detention, particularly first line thereof and thus, it would be relevant to reproduce the same hereunder: “Whereas, on the basis of grounds of detention placed before me by the Superintendent of Police Kulgam……” 5. From the above, it is apparent that detaining authority has mentioned that it is “on the basis of grounds of detention placed before” him “by the Superintendent of Police Kulgam” that he is satisfied to place detenu under preventive detention. 6. It is important to mention here that detaining authority may get inputs from different agencies, including Senior Superintendent of Police concerned, but formulation of grounds of detention is the exclusive responsibility of detaining authority. It is the detaining authority, who has to go through reports and other inputs received by him from concerned police and other agencies and on such perusal, it has to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that a person is to be placed under preventive detention. It is, therefore, for detaining authority to 3 formulate grounds of detention and satisfy itself that grounds of detention so formulated warrant passing of order of preventive detention. However, in the instant case, it is evident from impugned order of detention that grounds of detention have not been prepared by detaining authority and resultantly impugned detention order is vitiated. 7. Another submission of counsel for petitioner is that the material relied upon by detaining authority has not been furnished to detenu, to enable him to make an effective representation against his detention. Taking into account this submission, 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 and grounds of detention (Eight leaves) handed over to the detenue…..” 6. It would also be appropriate to reproduce relevant portion of “Receipt of Grounds of Detention” herein: …..the grounds of detention/Notice /Letter Addressed to the Detenue/other relevant papers of detention have been served to the detenue namely Muneeb Majeed Dar S/o Abdul Majeed Dar R/o Gopalpora D.H.Pora Kulgam at the time of execution of PSA warrant today on 18.04.2024 consisting of 08 leaves. .….” Thus, it is unambiguously clear and evident from perusal of Execution Report and Receipt of grounds of detention that only eight leaves have been given to detenu. 7. In grounds of detention, detaining authority has made reference to FIR no.154/2021 and other alleged activities. However, the detention record, as noted above, does not indicate that copies of aforesaid First Information Report, Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other material collected in connection with investigation of aforesaid case was ever supplied to the 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 4 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 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. 9. 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 with by the respondents in letter and spirit and resultantly, the impugned detention needs to be quashed. 13. Based on the above discussion, the petition is disposed of and Detention Order No.15/DMK/ PSA/2024 dated 16.04.2024, issued against the detenu is quashed. As a corollary, respondents, including Jail Superintendent concerned, are directed to set the detenu at liberty forthwith provided he is not required in any other case. Disposed of. 14. Detention record be returned to counsel for respondents. (Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge Srinagar 29.05.2025 (Qazi Amjad Secy.) Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No QAZI AMJAD YOUSUF I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Srinagar 29.05.2025 14:56