S. No. 01 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR HCP 335/2024 ADIL SHAFI TELI. …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Rizwan-ul-Zaman, Advocate. Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Ilyas Laway, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 21.08.2025 1. The petitioner herein has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing Detention Order No.24/DMA/PSA/DET of 2024 dated 09.09.2024 (for short impugned order) passed by respondent 3 herein (for short detaining authority) under and in terms of the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act of 1978 (for short the Act). 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on multiple grounds urged in the petition. 3. Reply affidavit has filed to the petition by Respondent 3 opposing the petition on the premise that upon perusal of the dossier and other material furnished to it and after deriving subjective satisfaction the preventive detention of the petitioner was found imperative and in the process all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees were complied with and that the detention order, grounds of detention as well as entire material relied upon came to be furnished to the petitioner and the contents of the said detention order as well as grounds of detention were read over to the petitioner in the language which he understood and in lieu whereof, the petitioner subscribed signatures as well on the execution report, and that the petitioner also availed his right of making a representation to the detaining authority as well as to the Government against his detention and that the said representation was considered and after being found devoid of any merit was rejected and the decision thereof was conveyed to the petitioner through Superintendent Central Jail concerned on 22.10.2024. Heard counsel for the parties and the detention record. 4. According to the counsel for the petitioner, detaining authority while detaining the petitioner was not provided with sufficient clarity as to which Terrorist Organization the petitioner was found to be in contact with, as the detaining authority used vague terms in the grounds of detention in this regard being OGW, HM, LeT outfits. Learned counsel would also contend that the petitioner was not made aware about the exact alleged prejudicial activities in the grounds of detention, which necessitated his detention under preventive law. Counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the detaining authority did not apply its independent mind while framing the grounds of detention and reproduced the dossier as a carbon copy while framing the said grounds of the petition. 5. On contrary, the counsel for the respondents while refuting the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner would submit that although the expressions OGW, HM, LeT were referred in the grounds of detention by the detaining authority, yet the petitioner has not shown any prejudice to have been caused to him on account of use of such expressions in the grounds of detention as the petitioner despite the use of said expressions submitted detailed representation against his detention which representation was duly considered and rejected. Learned counsel would also deny that the grounds of detention are the carbon copy of the dossier and would submit that the grounds of detention stand framed with complete application of mind by the detaining authority. 6. Before proceeding to advert to rival submissions appearing counsel for the parties, it is significant to mention here that law stands settled that preventive detention is not intended as a punitive measure or curtailment of liberty by way of punishment of an offence already committed and that the power to detain the person under preventive law has to be exercised with due caution so as to prevent a person for acting in any manner which may be prejudicial to any of the conditions set forth in the Act. However, law is equally settled that there must be sufficient credible material before the detaining authority to show that the person would got indulged in prejudicial activities in the future and that in absence thereof the preventive detention cannot be invoked. The aforesaid view has been expressed by this Court in case titled as “A. Kalidass Vs. State reported in 1990, KLJ page 49.” 7. Reverting back to the case in hand, perusal of the grounds of detention, although suggest that the detaining authority have had been informed by the Sponsoring agency that the petitioner was kept under surveillance as also bound down, yet the information received from the Secret Agency revealed that the petitioner as in touch/contact with OGW and other associates of LeT outfit. A closer examination of the detention record however does not reveal as to with whom OGW the petitioner was in contact with or else who were the other associates of the LeT outfits, the petitioner was in contact with them. The detaining authority seemingly has acted upon the material furnished to it by the Sponsoring Agency in a routine manner and seemingly has passed the impugned order without application of its independent mind inasmuch as the deriving subjective satisfaction thereof, which also lends support from the fact that the detaining authority has admittedly used expressions OGW, HM and LeT in the grounds of detention as have had been used by the Sponsoring Agency in the dossier. Law is settled that the detaining authority while invoking the power of preventive detention against a person has not to work on assumptions and presumptions inasmuch as to use acronyms as the said acronyms must be also known to the detenue. Although the petitioner has filed a representation against his detention and has not objected to the use of such expressions in the grounds of detention inasmuch as also not shown to have got prejudiced by use of such expressions, yet the perusal of the representation would reveal that in Para 3 thereof the petitioner has specifically averred that the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague and no prudent man can make any representation on such allegations, thus suggesting that the petitioner have had been prejudiced by use of such expressions in the grounds of detention and in the process violating his right enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution, in that, the petitioner would certainly be said to have been deprived of making an efficient representation against the detention. 8. Besides aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, perusal of the detention record produced would tend to show that aforesaid representation stands received by the respondent 1 on 11th September 2024, however, its rejection stands conveyed to the petitioner through District Magistrate, Anantnag on 22 October 2024, i.e; after more than a month. Insofar as delayed consideration of representation against preventive detention is concerned, law is no more res integra and stands settled by the Apex Court in case titled as “Ummu Sabeena V. State of Kerala” reported in 2011 Volume 10 SCC Page 781 has held that slackness or callous attitude in considering the representation of the detenue would be breach of constitutional imperative and would render detention order legally unsustainable. Moreover even a delay of ten days in considering and disposing of representation has been held by the Apex Court to be fatal to an order detention. 9. Viewed thus for what has been considered and analyzed herein above, the instant petition succeeds, as a consequence whereof the impugned detention Order No.24/DMA/PSA/DET of 2024 dated 09.09.2024 is quashed with the direction to the respondents including the concerned jail authority to release the petitioner from the preventive detention forthwith unless is required in any other case. 10. Detention record produced by the counsel for the respondents is returned back to him in the open Court. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 21.08.2025 Sabreena