HCP No.58/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKHAT SRINAGAR Reserved on:13.02.2025 Pronounced on:17.03.2025 HCP No.58/2023 TANVEER AHMAD KHAN ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate. Vs. UT OF J&K &ANR. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. Syed Musaib, Dy. AG. CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) By the instant petition, veracity and legality of the detention order No.46/DMB/PSA/2023dated 21.07.2023, issued by District Magistrate,Baramulla (for brevity “detaining authority”) has been challenged. In terms of the aforesaid order, Tanveer Ahmad Khanhas been placed under preventive detention so as to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State. 2) The petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind, inasmuch as the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and that the same have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It has been contended that the grounds HCP No.58/2023 of detention are vague, non-existent on which no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material which formed basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner. 3) Upon being put to notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their reply affidavit, wherein they have disputed the averments made in the petition and insisted that the activities of detenue are highly prejudicial to the security of the State.It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention along with the material relied upon by the detaining authority were handed over to the detenue and the same were read over and explained to him. That the grounds urged by the petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and without any merit. It has been further contended that the detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention. It is further claimed in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority. That the order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hardhan Saha v. State of W.B (1975) 3 SCC 198. The respondents have produced the HCP No.58/2023 detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit. 4) I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the impugned order, projected various grounds but his main thrust during the course of arguments was on the ground that the grounds of detention are vague, on the basis of which it was not possible for the petitioner to make an effective representation. 6) On perusal of the detention record produced by learned counsel for the respondents, the ground projected regarding vagueness of the averments made in the grounds of detention, appears to be forceful. In the grounds of detention, there is no mention of the particulars of the places and the identity of the terrorists, with whom the petitioner was allegedly in touch. The particulars of the period when the detenue is alleged to have remained in touch with the alleged terrorists are also not mentioned in the grounds of detention. Thus, the grounds, being vague and lacking in material particulars, the detenue could not have made an effective representation against his detention. 7) A Division Bench of this Court in the recent case titled “Imran Rashid Rather vs. UT of J&K” 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 351 has, while deliberating upon the effect of vagueness of the grounds of detention on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, observed as under:- HCP No.58/2023 “Therefore, this Court holds that vague and non-specific grounds of detention firstly, violates the fundamental right to life and personal liberty of the detenue under article 21 of the constitution as it summarily curtails the liberty of the citizen based on the subjective satisfaction of the executive which is an exceptional power as against the general law relating to arrest and detention. Secondly, it deprives the detenue of giving a specific rebuttal to the grounds of detention which may satisfy the detaining authority or the Government that his detention is unlawful and compels him to answer the grounds of detention as "it is incorrect" or "it is false" etc. Thirdly, vague and generalised grounds in the order of detention, smacks of arbitrariness on the part of the detaining authority rendering the subjective satisfaction arrived at as violative of article 14 of the constitution and fourthly, vague and non-specific grounds raise the impression that the same has been done deliberately in order to deprive the detenu of giving a precise rebuttal. Malafide in fact may be difficult to establish as they must be pleaded with specific facts, but the lack of bonafides 1State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma,1992 Supp(1) SCC 222, paragraph 49 - State of Punjab Vs. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 471, paragraph 9 -Pooja Batra Vs. Union of India and others, (2009) 5 SCC 296, paragraphs 18,40 and 41 may be presumed where the executive act results in the deprivation of personal liberty from a detention order based on vague grounds. In such cases, the lack of bonafides is to be presumed due to a cavalier or casual exercise of the authority to detain the citizen without any specific ill will or personal animosity. The lack of bonafides is on account of failure to take due care and act without introspection, blindly on the report of the SP without insisting on supporting material which justifies the deprivation of liberty.” 8) From the above analysis of the law, it is manifest that vagueness of grounds of detention strikes at the root of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority thereby vitiating the order of detention. On this ground alone, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside. 9) Viewed thus, the petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenue is directed to be released from the preventive custody forthwith provided he is not required in connection with any other case. HCP No.58/2023 10) The detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 17.03.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 19.03.2025 10:50