Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 123 (JK)

Mushtaq Ahmad Ganai v. State

2000-06-02

SYED BASHIR-UD-DIN

body2000
1. Mushtaq Ahmad Ganai is detained under order DMS/PSA/62 dated 06-08-1999 of District Magistrate, Srinagar under section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security under the warrant on 03-11-1999. This order is under challenge in this petition. 2. It is alleged that the detenue has not been informed of his right to make a representation against the detention. He has not been explained the grounds of detention. He has not been supplied copy of the detention order and is not aware about the basis of detention. It is further pleaded that the material and documents, the basis of the grounds have not been supplied to detenue. He is legally incapacitated from making a meaningful representation. 3. In reply petitioner™s detention by District Magistrate under his orders as above, is not refuted. He is stated to be taken in detention on 03-11-1999. It is stated that the grounds as also the order were served on the detenue, who was explained its contents in the language which he understood. He was also informed of his right to make a representation. The record/ material was supplied to the detenue. 4. The counsel representing the detaining authority/respondents, submits that the petitioner was taken in preventive custody in compliance with the detention order and that the procedural and other requirements as required under provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act have been complied with and the detention of the detenue is in order. 5. Petitioner™s counsel contends that the detenue has not been supplied the material and the documents unfolding the essential facts of the grounds, the basis of the detention, thereby violating the constitutional imperative as laid under Article 22 (5) of Constitution of India qua communication of the grounds of detention to the detenue and affording him an earliest opportunity of making representation against the detention order. In para 4 of the counter affidavit, it is stated:- 4. That the record/material in the form of grounds of detention stand supplied to the detenue, thereby enabling him to make a representation to the government against his detention which the detenue failed. No other material including FIR has been relied for detention of the detenue under PSA.� 7. This para has to be read with the grounds of detention. That the record/material in the form of grounds of detention stand supplied to the detenue, thereby enabling him to make a representation to the government against his detention which the detenue failed. No other material including FIR has been relied for detention of the detenue under PSA.� 7. This para has to be read with the grounds of detention. The first two paras of the grounds, introductory as they are relate to the residence, affiliation to the militant outfit and date of birth and education qualification of the detenue, Para 3 and 4 in all about 8 lines, read as under: - You were locally imparted weaponery training in handling sophisticated weapons like AK rifle by your outfit and were provided arms/amm. for spreading terror and panic in the area. You being close associate of Shabe R/o Khan Kha Sokhata, dead, of JKLF Org. Imtiyaz Ah mad Code Sahib, and Khurshid Ahamd, dead, of Org. JKLF played a vital role for the welfare of your banned organisation. You also remained active in the subversive activities till your arrest.� 8. The next two paras deal with FIR/121 99 under section 7/25 I.A. Act. registered at Police Station Safakadal Srinagar and arrest of detenue and recovery of arms at his instance The last two paragraphs again just 4 1/2 lines speak of petitioners joining his outlawed organisation and his activities being highly prejudicial to the security of the State. 9. The grounds disjoined as they are, make little sense in absence of details with reference to day and date, time, name, particulars etc. and that too when FIR Part is excluded therefrom as the same in terms of the counter is stated to be not relied for detention. There is nothing to show that even otherwise omnibus truncated grounds based as they should be on some police report, dossier etc., were communicated to the detenue. The detenue cannot be said to have been supplied any material/documents unfolding the essential and core facts of the grounds, the basis of the detention. Obviously, contention that the detenue was legally disabled to make a representation is sustainable on record. 10. In Sophia Ghulam Mohd Bham Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (AIR 1999 SC: 3051), in the context of preventive detention, it is pointed out:- ... Obviously, contention that the detenue was legally disabled to make a representation is sustainable on record. 10. In Sophia Ghulam Mohd Bham Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (AIR 1999 SC: 3051), in the context of preventive detention, it is pointed out:- ... The right to be communicated the grounds of detention flows from Article 22(5) while the right to be supplied all the material on which the grounds are based flows from the right given to the detenue to make a representation can be made and the order of detention can be assailed only when all the grounds on which the order is based are communicated to the detenue and the material on which those grounds are based are also disclosed and copies thereof are supplied to the person detained in his own language......� 11. In absence of supply of above basic facts and material, having a bearing in influencing detaining authority™s subjective satisfaction and conclusions, (not communicated) to the detenue, the detenue cannot be said to have been afforded an opportunity to make representation to the Government. In the overall facts and circumstances of this case the right to make effective and meaningful representation seems to have been denied to the detenue and obviously the respondents have breached constitutional obligation of the State of providing meaningful and effective opportunity to detenue of representation to the Government against the detention. 12 No other point is raised or canvassed to question the detention. For the aforesaid reasons, the detention is found, as above, legally bad and quashed. Respondents/detaining authority/officer having physical corpus of the detenue is directed to release him from custody and set him at liberty forthwith, provided not required in any substantive offence or case, communicate order to concerned. Give copy of order to detenue free of cost.