1. All the above-mentioned four petitions are being disposed by this common judgment. 2. Detenues namely Aasiya Indrabi, Shabir Ah mad Shah, Mehraj-ud-din Kalwal and Mohammad Ashraf Sahraie have been detained by the District Magistrate, Srinagar under the provisions of Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short the Act). They have through the medium of these four separate petitions challenges the orders of detention. 3. In HCP No. 198/08 one Syed Aasiya Indrabi W/o Ashaq Hussain Faktoo has been detained by District Magistrate, Srinagar vide order No.DMS/PSA/16/2008 dated 27.8.2008. The allegations on the basis of which the detenue has been taken into preventive deter lion ire contained in the grounds of detention, a copy of which has been placed on file. 4. It is alleged that she has been informed about her detention by the respondent No. 2 in terms of his communication No. DMS/PSA/Misc/Jud/9 -94/08 dated 27.8.2008. After serving the communication dated 27.8.2008 or, the detenue, the detenue was lodged in Central Jail, Srinagar. However, vide Order No. Home-PBV/714/11/2008 dated 5.9.2008 respondent no. 1 has ordered shifting of the detenue from Central Jail, Srinagar to District Jail, Udhampur. The order dated 5.9.2008 has been issued by respondent No. 1 on the basis of communications addressed to him by the Inspector General of Police, Kashmir. 5. In HCP No. 199/08 detenue Shabir Ahmed Shah S/o Ghulam Mohammad Shah R/o Anantnag Kashmir has been detained by District Magistrate, Srinagar vide Order No. DMS/PSA/19/2008 dated 30.8.2008. The allegations on the basis of which the detenue has been taken into preventive detention are contained in the grounds of detention. 6. In HCP No, 200/2008 detenue Mehraj-ud-din Kalwal has been detained by District Magistrate, Srinagar vide order. No.DMS/PSA/l7/2008 dated 27.8.2008. 7. In HCP No. 201/08 detenue Mohammadl Ashraf Sahraie has been detained by District Magistrate, Srinagar vide order No.DMS/PSA/18/2008 dated 29.8.2008, on the allegations on contained in the grounds of detention. 8. In all the four petitions almost common grounds have been taken to assail the orders of detention. It is stated that the grounds of detention on the basis of which respondents No. 2 has passed the orders of detention against the detenues are vague, ambiguous, indefinite and untrue. Various other grounds have also been taken which were argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and will be considered later. 9. It is stated that the grounds of detention on the basis of which respondents No. 2 has passed the orders of detention against the detenues are vague, ambiguous, indefinite and untrue. Various other grounds have also been taken which were argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners and will be considered later. 9. In all the four petitions shifting of detenues has been directed from Central Jail, Srinagar to Jails shown against each vide order No. Home: PBV/714/11/2008 dated 5.9.2008 as under: - 1. Syed Aasiya Andrabi Central Jail Srinagar to Udhampur Dist; Jail 2. Mehraj-ud-din Kalwal -do- to Kotebhalwal 3. Shabir Ahmad Shah -do- to District Jail Kathua 4. Mohd. Ashraf Sahrai -do- to Kotebhalwal 10. The detenues besides being aggrieved of the order of detention are also aggrieved of and have challenged their shifting from Central Jail, Srinagar to other jails shown in the order on the ground that the order is in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in A.K. Roy v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 740. Respondents have filed their reply in all the four petitions. In HCP No. 198/08 it is stated that the detenue is the Chairperson of a secessionist Dukhtarani Milat Organization. The main object of the organization is to carry out activities of making an effort to seek support from the women for supplementing the activities of different terrorist outfits with the aim and purpose to secede J&K State from the Union of India so as to annex it with Pakistan and in order to carry out this objective, the detenue has been actively involved in organizing programmes, hartals, rallies and harassing of the common people and thereby supporting the illegal and unlawful programmes. The detenue has been using every type of media to publicize anti-national agenda, which is being deliberately done to attract the attention of security forces and police so that the attention of the Police and security forces towards dealing with the terrorists and lighting terrorist is diverted. The respondents state that in light of facts and circumstances indicated in the ground of detention the detaining authority found the preventive detention of the detenue was required so as to prevent her to act and or indulge in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the state, which culminated in issuance of detention order against the detenu. It is further submitted that the application merits dismissal for the reason that there is no infirmity in the order of shifting on the one hand and on the other hand, the order will not in any way cause any inconvenience to the detenue. 11. In HCP No. 199/08 it is stated that the detenue is the Chairman of Democratic Freedom Party. The main object of the party is to carry out activities of making efforts to seek support from the people for, supplementing the ongoing militancy in the State of J&K so as to merge J&K State with Pakistan. Internally the detenue is linked with the militant organizations. The detenue is threatening the people of dire consequences, in case they exercise their free will or their resentment against militant ideology on the Kashmir issue. In light of the prejudicial activities of the detenue, the detaining authority found the preventive detention of the detenue was required so as to prevent him to act and or indulge in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the State. 12. In HCP No. 200/08 it is stated that the detenue was initially affiliated with the Hizbul Mujahideen militant outfit. After his release from detention, the detenue joined Jamati Islami organization. During the affiliation with the said organization, the detenue got influenced by the secessionist ideology and with the inception of militancy in the valley, the detenue exfiltrated to POK in January, 1990 for obtaining arms training, lie remained there for a considerable time during which he was imparted training to handle sophisticated arms and ammunition. He infiltrated back to valley in March, 1990, where he look active part in subversive and anti national activities and again after his release from detention, the detenue recycled in the militancy and indulged in various subversive activities. The detenue is one of the important functionaries of APHC and has been indulging in the activities which are secessionist in nature and is also ensuring that all the programmes chalked out by APHC are implemented on ground. The detenue has been found instigating the general public to rise again it the Government of India and join the secessionist movement. The detenue is one of the important functionaries of APHC and has been indulging in the activities which are secessionist in nature and is also ensuring that all the programmes chalked out by APHC are implemented on ground. The detenue has been found instigating the general public to rise again it the Government of India and join the secessionist movement. It is in light of the prejudicial activities of the detenue, that he detaining authority found the preventive detention of the detenue necessitated so as to prevent him to act and or indulge in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the State. 13. In HCP No. 201/08 it is stated that the detenue owes allegiance to Jamati-Islami organization though he started secessionist activities way back in 1960 and in order to materialize his ideology, he joined Jamati-Islami Organization and joining this organization was a camouflage to disguise his anti national and secessionist activities, which he carried out discretely by having contacts with all the like minded elements in the valley. The detenue has been affiliated with various, secessionist movements started at different times in the valley. The detenue has been found involved in subversive and anti-national activities. It is in right of the prejudicial activities of the detenue, that the detaining authority found the preventive detention of the detenue was required so as to prevent him to act and or indulge in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the state. 14. Heard, I have considered the matter. 15. I have gone through the detention record in all the four cases which was made available by Mr. Rathore, Both the learned counsels i.e. learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Mian Abdul Qayoom and leaned Advocate General Shri D.C. Raina argued the case at length and have referred to a number of authorities in support of their contentions. 16. 15. I have gone through the detention record in all the four cases which was made available by Mr. Rathore, Both the learned counsels i.e. learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Mian Abdul Qayoom and leaned Advocate General Shri D.C. Raina argued the case at length and have referred to a number of authorities in support of their contentions. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioners would take the following main grounds to assail the orders of detention in all the four cases: - a) That the grounds of detention on the basis of which the detaining authority has derived satisfaction are vague, obscure and indefinite which has rendered the order of detention as illegal; b) That the detaining authority has not supplied the detenue with the material and relevant documents on which the grounds of detention have been framed; due to vague grounds of detention and non-supply of the relevant material, the detenue could not make a representation which amounts to an infringement of the right of the detenues, 17. Before proceeding further, other grounds raised by Mr. Qayoom may also be noticed. 18. The main ground against the detenus is that they have given a call for boycott of State Assembly elections. It is submitted that even if the allegation is taken as correct it would (sic) no offence as boycotting an election or abstaining (sic) no offence at all. Abstaining from voting is (sic) to the Counsel, a recognised mode of protest and this practice is resorted in all the democratic forums including the Assembly and the Parliament. Mr. Qayoom would refer to Various provisions of the Peoples Representation Act. Indian Penal Code and Ranbir Penal Code to shows that not a single provision of these `laws prohibits abstaining from voting or election. 19. Per contra, Mr. Raina, learned Advocate general submits that in ordinary course abstaining from elections may not amount to an offence out if a call to boycott an election is given, as in the present case, to demonstrate separatist ideology, it would amount to violation of the provisions of the Constitution. The learned Advocate general would refer to Art. 1 of the Constitution of India and Section 3 of the State Constitution which provide, that the State of Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India. The learned Advocate general would refer to Art. 1 of the Constitution of India and Section 3 of the State Constitution which provide, that the State of Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India. Learned Advocate General submits that once the detaining authority is satisfied about the prejudicial activities of the detenu, the courts cannot evaluate the nature of grounds and sufficiency thereof. Whether there was credible material before the detailing authority or not, is not for the courts to decide. Action by way of preventive detention is largely based on suspicion and the Court is not an appropriate forum to investigate the question whether the circumstances of suspicion exist warranting the restraint on a person. In this behalf he has relied on Union of India v. Arvind Shergill AIR 2000 SC 2924 and Ch. Mohd. Bhat v. State 2003(11) SLJ 511. He further submits that this ground cannot be raised as a pica to challenge the detention order at this stage as it has not been specifically pleaded at all in the petitions. 20. Mr. Qayoom in reply to these submissions, states that these provisions are not without an exception and Art. 253 and Art. 370 of the Constitution would show that the Government has to respect the international agreements and the provisions of Art. 370 are temporary provisions in respect of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, which according to the Counsel is a political dispute which needs to be resolved as per the resolutions passed by the United Nations. 21. Notwithstanding the fact that this ground is not specifically pleaded in the petitions, I could not find any force in the submission of Mr. Qayoom. 22. To invoke, jurisdiction under the Act, it is not necessary that the alleged activities of the detenu should amount to an offence. As has been held in Union of India v. Chaya Ghoshai AIR 2005 SC 428, cited by the learned Advocate General, in case of preventive detention no offence is proved but it requires an action to be taken to prevent apprehended objectionable activities. 23. The Supreme Court has in the said case observed: "Preventive detention is an anticipatory measure and does not relate to an offence, while the criminal proceedings are to punish a person for an offence committed by him. They are not parallel proceedings. 23. The Supreme Court has in the said case observed: "Preventive detention is an anticipatory measure and does not relate to an offence, while the criminal proceedings are to punish a person for an offence committed by him. They are not parallel proceedings. The object of the law of preventive detention is not punitive but only preventive. It is resorted to when the Executive is convinced that such detention is necessary in order to prevent the person detained from acting in a manner prejudicial to certain objects which are specified by the concerned law. The action of Executive in detaining a person being only precautionary, normally the matter has necessarily to be left to the discretion of the executive authority. It is not practicable to lay down objective rules of conduct in an exhaustive manner, the failure to conform to which should lead to detention. The satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, therefore, is considered to be of primary importance, with great latitude in the exercise of its discretion. The Detaining Authority may act on any material and on any information that it may have before it. Such material and information may merely afford basis for a sufficiently strong suspicion to take action, but may not satisfy the tests of legal proof on which alone a conviction for offence will be tenable. The compulsions of the primordial need to maintain order in society without which the enjoyment of all rights, including the right to personal liberty of citizens would loose all their meanings provide the justification for the laws of preventive "detention". 24. It also pointed out by Mr. Qayoom that the orders of detention cannot be maintained as the orders speak both of maintenance of the security of the State and public order. Detention can be ordered either on the security of state or public order not on both the grounds. In this behalf the Counsel refers to Section 8 and the meaning of `acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as contained in section 8(3)(b) of the Act. He has also relied on G.M. Shah v. State of J&K, (1980) 1 SCC 132, where the Supreme Court observed as under: "8. The expressions "law and order", "public order" and "security of the State are distinct concepts though not always separate. He has also relied on G.M. Shah v. State of J&K, (1980) 1 SCC 132, where the Supreme Court observed as under: "8. The expressions "law and order", "public order" and "security of the State are distinct concepts though not always separate. Whereas every breach of peace may amount to disturbance of law and order, every such breach does not amount to disturbance of public order and every public disorder may not prejudicially affect the "security of the State". 25. I could not find any merit in the submissions for the reason that though the detaining authority has at some places used the words public order, the contents of the orders would show that the detaining authority found the activities of the detenus were prejudicial to the security of the State. The authority, therefore, proceeded on that basis and directed the detentions of the detenu. The adequacy of the material on which the detaining authority draws satisfaction is not open to judicial review nor will the court examine the satisfaction of the authority as if it was a court of appeal. The duty of this court is to see that the constitutional safeguards available to a detenu have been complied with in letter and spirit. Though the Court can, as has rightly been submitted by Mr. Qayoom, in certain circumstances examine and set aside an order of detention, if the same is a mala fide one, the main concern should be protection of the rights of the detenu guaranteed by the constitution. Courts while exercising writ jurisdiction may not re-appreciate the materials, yet since detention involves liberty of a citizen and his freedom of movement, a valuable right guaranteed by the Constitution, it is permissible for the courts to see whether the detaining authority has acted in accordance with law. 26. Coming to me main grounds raised by Mr. Qayoom, it is submitted by him that the grounds of detention on the basis of which the detaining minority has derived satisfaction are vague, obscure and indefinite due to which the detenu could not make a representation. 27. It is well settled law now that as soon as the detaining authority derives satisfaction about the detention of a person and directs his/her preventive detention, the detenu is to be informed, as soon as may be of the grounds on which the order of detention is made. 27. It is well settled law now that as soon as the detaining authority derives satisfaction about the detention of a person and directs his/her preventive detention, the detenu is to be informed, as soon as may be of the grounds on which the order of detention is made. The provisions in this behalf are contained in section 13 of the Act which provides as under: "13. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to persons affected by the order: - (1) When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making die order shall, as soon as may be, but ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than ten days from the date of detention communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made, and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the Government." XX XX XX XX 28. The provision contained in Section 13 (1) is derived from and is based on the constitutional protection conferred by Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, which grants two rights to a detenu, i.e. (i) the right to be informed as soon as may be of the grounds 01; which the order has been made, that is to say, the grounds on which the subjective satisfaction has been formed by the detaining authority and, (ii) the right to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention. The scope of the Article has been expanded by the Courts by providing certain safeguards to the rights of a detenu It has been laid down by the Courts particularly the Supreme Court that the grounds of detention together with the supporting documents should be made available to the detenu in a language known to the detenu. A duty has been cast, on the authorities who have power to reconsider or revoke the detention, to appraise the detenu of the right to make representation. Similarly the duty to consider the representation filed by or on behalf of the detenu with reasonable expedition has been emphasized in more than one case. 29. One of the safeguards provided in this regard is that the grounds supplied to the detenu should be such as would enable him to make an effective representation. Similarly the duty to consider the representation filed by or on behalf of the detenu with reasonable expedition has been emphasized in more than one case. 29. One of the safeguards provided in this regard is that the grounds supplied to the detenu should be such as would enable him to make an effective representation. If the grounds are vague and drafted in a routine manner, which do not provide sufficient details about his activities, which in the opinion of the detaining authority are prejudicial to the security of the state or public order, the detenu cannot make an effective representation and this right of the detenu, which is guaranteed to him by the Constitution will get violated. This in itself will render the detention bad in law. 30. In Dhananjoy Das v. District Magistrate, AIR 1982 SC 1315 the Supreme Court held: "The law is by now well settled that a detenu has two rights under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution : (1) to be informed, as soon as may be of the grounds on which the order of detention is made, that is, the grounds which led to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, and (2) to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention, that is 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 nonexistent 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. Therefore in this view of the legal position if the grounds are vague and indefinite that would amount to an infringement of the second right of the appellant, h is by virtue of the second right that the detaining authority has to supply the material facts on the basis of which subjective satisfaction was derived for passing the order of detention and this is how the facts from which the inference is drawn also become a part and parcel of the grounds." 31. In State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya, AIR 1951 SC 1 57 the Supreme Court held: "Clause (5) of Art. 22 confers two rights on the detenu, namely, first, a right to be informed of the grounds on which the order of detention has been made, and secondly, to be afforded the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the order; and though these rights are linked together they are two distinct rights. If grounds which have a rational connection with the objects mentioned in S. 3 are supplied, the first condition is complied with. But the right to make a representation implies that the detenu should have information so as to enable him to make a representation, and if the grounds supplied are not sufficient to enable the detenu to make a representation, he can rely on the second right. He may if he likes ask for further particulars which will enable him to make a representation. On an infringement of either of these two rights the detained person has a right to approach the court, and even if an infringement of the second right under Art. 22 (5) is alone established he is entitled to be released." In Chaju Ram v. State of J. and K., AIR 1971 SC 263 the grounds charged the detenu with having conspired with some leaders of Democratic Conference and having incited landless people of R.S. Pura Tehsil to forcibly occupy the land comprised in Nandpur Mechanised Farm and to have persuaded them lo resist violently any attempt to evict them. No details of the leaders of the conference or of the persons incited or the dates on which he conspired or incited the squatters or the time when such conference took place were mentioned. In the facts and circumstances of the case it was held by the Supreme Court that it would be impossible for anybody to make a representation against such grounds. The grounds, on the authorities of this Court, too numerous to be cited here, must be held to be vague." 32. Another case on the subject is of Copal Bauri v. District Magistrate, Bardwan AIR 1975 SC 781. The grounds which had been furnished to the detenu in that case described the occurrences of two successive days, namely, March 20, and 21, 1973. Another case on the subject is of Copal Bauri v. District Magistrate, Bardwan AIR 1975 SC 781. The grounds which had been furnished to the detenu in that case described the occurrences of two successive days, namely, March 20, and 21, 1973. Ground No. 1 charged the detenu with regard to the incidence of March 20, 1973 that he with other associates committed theft of ball bearings and wheels of the bucket carriages of the rope-way lines near Harishpur village and the supply of sand to the collieries was suspended. Likewise, about the incidence of March 21, 1973 the second ground charged the detenu that he with ether associates committed theft of ball bearings and wheels of the bucket carriages from the rope-way lines at Palashbon village causing suspension of supply of sand to the collieries. The detenu was not communicated the names of the particular associates from whose possession recovery of the stolen articles, the subject matter of thefts disclosed in the two grounds, was made and on the facts and circumstances of that case it was found that the grounds of detention were vague. 33. In Dr. Ram Krishan Bhardwaj v. State of Delhi, AIR 1953 SC 318 one of the grounds of detention mentioned was that: "You have been organising the movement (Praja Parishad Movement) by enrolling volunteers among the refugees in your capacity as President of the Refugee Association of Bara Hindu Rao." 34. This ground was found to be vague and even though the other grounds were not vague, the detention was held to be not in accordance with the procedure established by law and was therefore illegal. 35. In Mohd. Yousuf Rather v. State of J. and K AIR 1979 SC 1925 the grounds of detention were as under: "You are a die-hard Naxalite and you are notorious for you activities which are proving pre-judicial to the maintenance of public order. You are in the habit of organising meetings, secret as well as public in which you instigate the people to create lawlessness which spreads panic in the minds of common people. You are also reported to be in the habit of going from one village to the other, with intent to compel the shopkeepers to close down their shops and participate in the meetings. You are also reported to be in the habit of going from one village to the other, with intent to compel the shopkeepers to close down their shops and participate in the meetings. You are reported to have recently started a campaign in villages, asking the inhabitants not to sell their extra paddy crop to the Government and in case they are compelled to do so, they should manhandle the Government officials deputed for the purpose of purchasing shall on voluntary basis from the villagers. On 9-2-1979 you, after compelling the shopkeepers to close down their shops, organised a meeting at Chawalgam and asked the participants to lodge protests against the treatment meted out to Shri Z.A. Bhutto, late Prime Minister of Pakistan by General Zia-Ul-Haq, in fact, you did not have any sympathy for the late Prime Minister, but you did it with one intent to exploit the situation and create lawlessness. On 23-3-1979 you presided over a meeting at Kulgam and delivered a speech. Among other things, you passed derogatory remarks against Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah, the Chief Minister of the State and compared him with General Zia of Pakistan, said that he (the Chief Minister) also wants to become a dictator. You further stated that the Mullas of Kashmir are preparing for distribution of sweets on the day when Shri Bhutto is sent gallows. You also stated that the people of the State have been oppressed and blamed the Chief Minister for their oppression. You asked the audience to shun the life of dishonour and rise in revolt against oppression. You went to the extent of saying that India should vacate the forcible occupation of the State, as the Kashmir question has not so far been settled. These irresponsible utterance of you are likely to create feelings of hatred and enmity which will ultimately disturb the public order. On 29-3-1979 posters were found pasted on walls in Kulgam area which were got published by the CPI (ML). It was learnt that there was your hand in pasting these posters, the posters were captioned `Inqalab ke bager koe hal nahin. The contents of the poster, among other things, revealed that it made a mention of plebiscite saying that the demand was given up with ulterior motives. It further stated that the people should prepare themselves for revolution. It was learnt that there was your hand in pasting these posters, the posters were captioned `Inqalab ke bager koe hal nahin. The contents of the poster, among other things, revealed that it made a mention of plebiscite saying that the demand was given up with ulterior motives. It further stated that the people should prepare themselves for revolution. You were also noticed instigating the "Educational" (sic) unemployed youth who had recently gone on a hunger strike at Anantnag. On 4-4-1979 and 5-4-979 after Mr. Z.A. Bhutto was hanged, you were found leading the unruly mobs in different villages and instigating them to set the house of J.E.I. worker on fire. As a result of this instigation a number of houses were set on fire, property looted and heavy damages caused to the people at village Rarigam. In this connection a case FIR No. 34/79/U/s. 395, 430, 148, 307 etc. has been registered at Police Station Kulgam against you and others. Property worth thousands has so far been recovered during the investigation of this case. Your activities are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and I am convinced that unless you are detained, large scale disturbances resulting in widespread loss to the public and private property aid to the safety of peaceful citizens will occur." 36. Commenting upon the grounds the Court observed: "5. A reading of the first paragraph shows that it is vague in several respects. It does not state the places where the petitioner is said to have organised the meetings, or the nature of lawlessness instigated by him. It does not also mention the names of the villages where he is said to be in the habit of going for compelling the shopkeepers to close down their shops and to participate in the meetings. So also, it does not mention the villages where the petitioner was reported to have "recently" stared the campaign asking the inhabitants not to sell their extra paddy, or to manhandle the government officials. The paragraph is therefore undoubtedly very vague. 6. So also, it does not mention the villages where the petitioner was reported to have "recently" stared the campaign asking the inhabitants not to sell their extra paddy, or to manhandle the government officials. The paragraph is therefore undoubtedly very vague. 6. Rut even if the first paragraph is left out of consideration on the pretext that it is in the nature of a preamble, the fifth paragraph is quite vague, for while it states that the petitioner was noticed instigating the educated unemployed youth who had recently gone on a hunger strike in Anantnag the nature or the purpose of the alleged instigation has not been stated so that it is not possible to appreciate whether it could be said to fall within the mischief of clause (b) of sub-sec. (3) of S. 8 which defines what is meant by "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" within the meaning of clause (a) (i) of sub-s. (1) of S. 8. For instance, if it was noticed that the petitioner was instigating the educated unemployed youth to go on hunger strike for the purpose of pressing their demand for employment, that would not amount to acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as it would not be covered by any of the bur meanings assigned to that expression in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of S. 8. 7. The sixth paragraph is also vague, for while it states that the petitioner was found leading the unruly mobs in different villages and instigating them to set fire to the house of the worker of Jamaiat-e-Islami, the names of those villages and the name of the owner of burnt house have not been stated". 37. The Court considering these facts held: "This Court has disapproved of vagueness in the grounds of detention because that impinges on the fundamental right of the detenu under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution to make a representation against the order of detention when the grounds on which the order has been made are communicated to him. The purpose of the requirement is to afford him the earliest opportunity of seeking redress against the order of detention. But as is obvious, that opportunity cannot be said to be afforded when it is established that a ground of detention is so vague that he cannot possibly make an effective representation. The purpose of the requirement is to afford him the earliest opportunity of seeking redress against the order of detention. But as is obvious, that opportunity cannot be said to be afforded when it is established that a ground of detention is so vague that he cannot possibly make an effective representation. Reference in this connection may be made to this Courts decision in State of Bombay v. Alma Ram Sridhar Vaidya, 1951 SCR 167 where the guarantee of Art. 22(5) has been characterised as an elementary right of a citizen in a free democratic State, and it has been held that if a ground of detention is not sufficient to enable the detained person to make a representation at the earliest opportunity, it must be held that his fundamental right in that respect has been infringed inasmuch as the material conveyed to him does not enable him to make the representation. So as the aforesaid grounds of detention are vague, the petitioner is entitled to an order of release for that reason alone". 38. In Jahangirkhan Fazalkhan Pathan v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad AIR 1989 SC 1812 the averments made in the grounds were: - "Accordingly, upon careful perusal of complaint and papers enclosed with the proposal it appears that you are a prohibition bootlegger, doing illegal activity of selling English and deshi liquor. You and your companions are bearing and showing deadly weapons like Rampuri knife to the innocent persons passing through the said locality on the premises of being `Batmidar of police. And you are beating innocent persons who oppose your activity of liquor etc." 39. It was held that these statements were vague and without any particulars as to what place or when and to whom the detenue threatened with Rampuri knife and whom he has alleged to have beaten. It was further held that these vague averments made in the grounds of detention are bad inasmuch as the detenu could not make an effective representation against the impugned order of detention. As such the detention order is illegal and bad. 40. Applying these principles to the present case, I find vague and obscure grounds have been framed and furnished to the detenue. 41. The grounds of detention framed in the case of Aasiya Indrabi read as under: - "Whereas, you are self styled chair person of women secessionist organization named Dukhtarian-i-Millat. As such the detention order is illegal and bad. 40. Applying these principles to the present case, I find vague and obscure grounds have been framed and furnished to the detenue. 41. The grounds of detention framed in the case of Aasiya Indrabi read as under: - "Whereas, you are self styled chair person of women secessionist organization named Dukhtarian-i-Millat. The aim and the objective of the said outfit is to gather women under the banner of said outfit to supplement the activities carried out by different terrorist and secessionist outfits, which are ultimately aimed at seceding of State of J&K from the Union of India and to annex it with Pakistan. In order to execute its objective the outfit and its cadres are engaged in various activities like supporting illegal programmes of various secessionist organizations which includes the hartals, protest, rallies and harassment of common people on the pretext of enforcing Islamic code. Some of the cadres of the outfit are even providing logistic support to terrorists and some have been found directly involved in subversive activities. Whereas, you were born in Srinagar and is approximately 40 years old. You are a vibrant lady and have a long history of being affiliated with secessionist movement. With the inception of militancy in the State in early nineties you founded womens organization named Dukhtarian-i-Millat and became its self styled chair person. The manifest of the said outfit is well known which is to support the pro-Pak ideology and strive for accession of State of J&K with Pakistan. Over the years you have emerged as one of the most vocal and ardent supporters of secessionism and you have been repeatedly expressing your anti national sentiments whenever the occasion arises. For indulging in anti national activities you have been arrested several times alongwith your colleagues for various offences committed by them. You are a well connected lady having contacts across the border and it is at the behest of your mentors sitting across the border that you executes various programmes as per the directions received across the border. For carrying out such programmes you are allegedly receiving illegal money through Hawala Channels and the information available so far has established this fact. For carrying out such programmes you are allegedly receiving illegal money through Hawala Channels and the information available so far has established this fact. Whereas, you have been using every type of media to publicize your anti-national agenda, which is being deliberately done to attract the attention of security forces and Police so that the attention of Police and security forces towards terrorists is less. This is a well thought out strategy facilitate the terrorists and other secessionists to carry out their activities easily. Whereas, you have repeatedly been challenging the accession of State of J&K with the Union of India and incite general public to follow the suit. You have been advocating a hard line approach for the so called solution of J&K State and opposes moderate means. You have never reconciled to the democratic process and always resort to activities which are anti national and illegal in nature. You have been found creating a law and order situation on one pretext or the other. Whereas, some three years back you chalked out a programme of enforcing your own brand of Islamic code and to force the public to adhere the Islamic code as interpreted by you. Whosoever defied the said dictum was attacked and acid was being sparkled on the face of many women not wearing the veils. Continuing your campaign alongwith your colleagues attacked several Motels and Wine shops in the year 2005, the illegal campaign launched by you created panic among the general public and the women folk in particular. For indulging in such activities you were detained under PSA on 6.9.2005 and lodged in Central Jail Srinagar. The said detention order was subsequently quashed by the Honble Court vide order dated 9.12.2005 and you were accordingly released. However, immediately after your release you reactivated your contacts and stated to indulge in similar activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State and harassment to general public. It needs to be reiterated here that the activities undertaken by you and your organization are meant to divert the attention of Police and security forces from terrorists and to give them a breathing period. Thus the same can be turned as being prejudicial to the security of the State. It needs to be reiterated here that the activities undertaken by you and your organization are meant to divert the attention of Police and security forces from terrorists and to give them a breathing period. Thus the same can be turned as being prejudicial to the security of the State. However, to gain social acceptability you always give your activities a religious colour and pretend to be acting for religious and social good, but the activities being carried out by you and your colleagues can be no stretch of imagination the termed as legal. In one such incident on 9.3.2007 you along with your associates, both male and female attacked Hotel De-Meridian near Naaz crossing and damaged furniture. The hotel never was injured and the unruly mob headed by you looted many things from the hotel. While coming out from the hotel you and your other associates resorted to stone pelting, damaged many vehicles and set one Maruti Car on fire. The unruly mob led by you turned into Un-lawful assembly and it was after great efforts from Police that the situation was brought under control. In this regard case FIR No. 21/07 U/s 415, 452, 395, 427, 147, 148 RPC stands registered in Police Station Shergari, Which is under investigation. Whereas, you have been availing every opportunity to create a hatred for the establishment of peace and have been resorting to various type of anti national activities. You have been exploiting every issue to arouse the sentiments of common masses against the Union of India and have been advocating the secession of State of J&K from the Union of India at every available opportunity. In recent past an agitation started in the Kashmir valley against the diversion of land to SASB. You along with other members of various secessionist organizations exploited the situation and gave it a shape as to appear an agitation in support of the so called Azadi. You have been found propagating an anti national agenda through out this period and the general public which were otherwise pacified by the cancellation of the Older of diversion of land, were exploited, instigated, exhorted and compelled to assemble in large numbers in various rallies like Muzafferabad Chaloo, Pampore Chaloo, UNO Chaloo and Eidgah Chaloo. You have been found propagating an anti national agenda through out this period and the general public which were otherwise pacified by the cancellation of the Older of diversion of land, were exploited, instigated, exhorted and compelled to assemble in large numbers in various rallies like Muzafferabad Chaloo, Pampore Chaloo, UNO Chaloo and Eidgah Chaloo. All these rallies which were organized by you and your other associates, subsequently turned awful and the people participating therein were instigated to resort to anti national sloganeering which created an atmosphere of violence in District Srinagar. Whereas, you alongwith other associates have chalked at a programme to continue the anti national activities and to organize such activities a Coordination Committee has been formed by all the secessionist elements, of which you are also a member. In order to prevent you and your other associates indulge in anti national and criminal activities, prohibitory orders have been issued by the District Administration, but once the prohibitory orders are withdrawn, there is a well founded apprehension that you will again indulge in similar activities as mentioned above, which have a direct bearing upon the maintenance of the security of the State and public order. Normal law which has been invoked against you on several occasions has not been sufficient to deter you from indulging in such activities. It is clear that your activities are highly pre-judicial to the maintenance of security of the State. Under such compelling circumstances it has become imperative to detain you under Public Safety Act, 1978 for which orders are being issued separately." 42. As would appear from these grounds of detention the detaining authority has laid down the allegations against the detenues but no details thereof are given, to enable the detenus to make representation against such allegations. From these allegations it does not appear when and where the alleged activities have been committed. 43. The grounds of detention in the case of Shabir Ahmad Shah are as: - "Whereas, you originally hail from District Anantnag and in your prime youth joined the peoples league, a secessionist organization which advocates the merger of State of J&K with Pakistan. The activities since then carried out by you are aimed at achieving the said objective which has a direct bearing upon the maintenance of the security of the State. The activities since then carried out by you are aimed at achieving the said objective which has a direct bearing upon the maintenance of the security of the State. Whereas, later in the wake of militancy which erupted in the year 1990, lot of Kashmiri Youth crossed LOC and obtained training in handling of sophisticated weapon at your instance and on their return back to the valley the armed youth executed terrorist and subversive activities throughout the valley. You played an important role in motivating the youth to join the terrorist fold and in arranging their infiltration to POK for arms training. Whereas, the Peoples League founded its own militant outfit namely Muslim Janbaz Force, which launched militant attacks throughout the valley and ultimately a sizable number of released militants affiliated with Muslim Janbaz Force merged with APHC and other like minded parties headed by Molvi Umar Farooq in which you played a very important role. Whereas, all militant outfits out of which some having political affiliations got merged into APHC. The aim and objective of the APHC is to assist and support militant organizations in liberating the State of J&K from Union of India by waging war through the Armed organizations including HM, Al-Bader, Al-Jehad, Al-Umar. LET etc. To achieve this objective APHC has phased its Programme in different stages as under: - i. To motivate the Kashmir Muslim youths to join the militant organizations and other secessionist organization. ii. To distribute and circulate anti national and highly objectionable literature among the people of the State. iii. To give a political colour to the activities of anti national elements which are otherwise secessionist in nature. Whereas, you remained an active dedicated and staunch member of the said APHC alongwith other members and supported the ongoing militancy in State of J&K. Due to ideological differences you got separated and formed a new party under the name and style of Democratic Freedom Party and became self styled chairman, which you continue to be at present. The aims and objectives of this party are similar to that of APHC. Whereas apparently you are the chairman of the Democratic freedom Party but internally you are linked with militant organizations and also have direct liaison with APHC. You are executing the policies and objectives of the APHC and militant outfits. The aims and objectives of this party are similar to that of APHC. Whereas apparently you are the chairman of the Democratic freedom Party but internally you are linked with militant organizations and also have direct liaison with APHC. You are executing the policies and objectives of the APHC and militant outfits. Moreover you have succeeded in gathering a number of released militants under the banner of Democratic Freedom party thereby you are providing shelter to these released militants and camouflage their activities. Whereas, having the support of militant outfits you are threatening the people of dire consequence; in case they exercise their free will or their resentment against you ideology on the Kashmir issue. Your contacts with the underground militants and with the people sitting across the border have always been objectionable and suspicious. Whereas, you have a long history of your affiliation with militant ad secessionist organizations and you have been arrested/detained several times for your anti national activities. You have been a vocal advocate of cessation of State of J&K from the Union of India and to achieve this goal you have been resorting to illegal/ unlawful activities since long. Whereas, with the change in scenario, you emerged as a leading voice in secessionist circles and played a very important role in the unification of two APHC i.e. APHC (M) headed by Molvi Mohammad Umar Farooq and APHC (G) headed by Syed All Shah Geelani. During this period you got affiliated with APMC (M) but at the same time you maintained your close contacts with Syed Ali Shah Geelani as well. In the month of June 2008 an agitation was started in the valley against the diversion of land to SASB. You along with your other associates were directly responsible for instigating the general public to resort to unlawful activities. However after the cancellation of I he order regarding the diversion of land to SASB, the general public got satisfied and started their normal activities, hut you alone with your other secessionist associates exploited the situation and instigated the general public to agitate in support of the so called Azaadi of State of J&K from Union of India and in this regard chalked out a Programme whereby all the secessionist parties got united under one umbrella and all these elements combined in organizing big rallies like Muzaffar-Abad Chalo, Pampore Chalo, Eidgah Chalo etc. during which you played a very important role in instigating the general public to resort lo unlawful and violent activities. It is pertinent to mention here that you yourself led the Muzaffar Abad Chalo from Sopore and instigated the general public to cross the LOC. At your instance the public resorted to violence resulting in large scale loss of human life and property. During these unlawful assemblies you delivered highly objectionable and inflammatory speeches and exhorted the general public to join the secessionist movement ad resort to unlawful activities, which to public actually did resisting in a number of casualties and destruction of public properly. During these rallies carried out in recent past you have been repeatedly glorifying the death of terrorists and have been asking the general public to follow the path of terrorists. Since you wield a considerable clout in secessionist and militant circles, large number of youth are getting motivated by your sermons and are joining the secessionist/militant ranks. You and your other associates created an atmosphere of chaos and anarchy in the valley which necessitated the imposition of prohibitory orders by the administration. Though the prohibitory orders arc still in force but once the orders are withdrawn, there is every apprehension that you will again exploit the sentiments of the general public and instigate them to indulge in anti national activities. Normal laws which have been invoked against you several times in the past has not been sufficient to stop you from indulging in activities as mentioned above. It is clear that your activities are highly prejudicial o the maintenance of security of the State. Under such compelling circumstances. It has become imperative to detain you under Public Safety Act, 1978 for which orders are being issued separately." 44. These grounds of detention also do not give the dales, names of associates, places etc and other details. It is alleged that the detenu is threatening the people of dire consequences; in case they exercise their free will but the details thereof is not given nor is it clear where such threatenings have been given by the detenu. It is further alleged that he led the Muzaffar Abad Chalo from Sopore and instigated the general public to cross the LOC but again the dates and other details are to given. 45. It is further alleged that he led the Muzaffar Abad Chalo from Sopore and instigated the general public to cross the LOC but again the dates and other details are to given. 45. The grounds of detention against Mehraj-ud-Din kalwal read as under: - "Whereas, you nave along-history of being affiliated with terrorist/secessionist, organisation right from your adulthood. You were initially affiliated with H.M. outfit and after your release from detention you got affiliated with PHC (G) group. The activities being carried-out-by you have a direct bearing upon the security of the State as the aim and objective of your organization you have remained affiliated with, is to secede the State of J&K from the Union of India and to annex it with Pakistan. Whereas, you were borne in the year 1973 at your native place Ralwal Mohalla Rainawari and you obtained education up to 10th class. During the studies you came into contact with one Moulvi Mohammad Sadiq, who motivated you to join Jel. You got readily motivated and joined Jamait-i-lslami. During your affiliation with the said organization you got influenced by the secessionist ideology and with the inception of militancy in the valley, you remained for two months and after obtaining arms training to handle sophisticated arms and ammunition, infiltrated back to valley in March 1990. You were arrested immediately after your return from POK and released in March 1992. After your release you recycled in the militancy and indulged in various subversive activities. You were again arrested on 03.01.1995 and were detained under the provisions of PSA and thereafter released n the year 1998. After your release you continued your anti-national and secessionist activities under the banner of Jamait-i-lslami. During this period you motivated a number of misguided youth to join the secessionist movement and also instigated the general public to arise against the Govt. of India and the State Government duly established under law. You were again arrested in the year 2001 and remained under custody for a period of about 09 months. Whereas after release you joined newly formed Tehrik-I-Hurriyat Kashmir when the back away group of APHC was formed by Syed Ali Shah Geelani and being an experienced and well known figure among secessionist circles you were made the District President for Srinagar of the Tehrik-i-Hurriyat Kashmir. Whereas after release you joined newly formed Tehrik-I-Hurriyat Kashmir when the back away group of APHC was formed by Syed Ali Shah Geelani and being an experienced and well known figure among secessionist circles you were made the District President for Srinagar of the Tehrik-i-Hurriyat Kashmir. Since ten you have been indulging in activities which are secessionist in nature and is also ensuring that all the programmes chalked out by APHC (G) groups are implemented on ground. You being a die hard secessionist and for your proximity with Jamait-i-Islami cadres most of whom founded Tehrik-i-Hurriyat Kashmir) is highly depended upon by Syed Ali Shah Geelani in matter of policy making and its subsequent implementation. Whereas, on 22.4.2007 a rally was organized by APHC (G) ground in (sic) Ghan Srinagar wherein you along with other associates instigated the general public to rise against the Government of India and join the secessionist movement. The gathering subsequently turned unlawful and in this regard case FIR No. 70/07 under the provisions of ULA (P) Act was registered in P/S Safakadal against you and your other associates. You were arrested in the said case and subsequently bailed out by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Whereas despite getting repeated changes to Shun the path of violence and to live a peaceful life, you have chosen to remain a part of the secessionist movement and indulge in various anti national and subversive activities. You have been regularly featuring adversely in police diaries since long for your activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the State. Whereas, in the recent past an agitation started in the valley particularly in District Srinagar against the diversion of land to SASB, Members of APHC(G) group in general and in particular exploited the sentiment of the general public and diverted the agitation, which was earlier started against the diversion of land to SASB, to seek the so-called "Azadi" for J&K. In this regard you organized a series of violent protest along with your other associates which resulted in large scale loss of human life and public property. The rallies so organized by you and your other associates have endangered the territorial integrity of the country, thereby effecting the security of the State. You have been found instigating the general public to defy the government orders for maintenance of peace. The rallies so organized by you and your other associates have endangered the territorial integrity of the country, thereby effecting the security of the State. You have been found instigating the general public to defy the government orders for maintenance of peace. You have also been found discreetly propagating the cause of terrorism at this crucial juncture. Normal law which have been previously invoked against you several times has not been sufficient to stop you from indulging in activities as mentioned above." 46. It is clear that your activities are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State. Under such compelling circumstances. It has become imperative to detain you under Public Safety Act, 1978 for which orders are being issued separately. 47. The allegations against him are that he organized a series of violent protest along with his other associates which resulted in large scale loss of human life and public property, the rallies so organized by him have endangered the territorial integrity of the country, thereby effecting the security of the State. He has been found instigating the general public to defy the government orders for maintenance of peace. He has also been found discreetly propagating the cause of terrorism at this crucial juncture. But again the dates and other details are not given. Even the names of the associates of the detenue are not mentioned. 48. The grounds of detention in the case of Mohammad Ashraf Sahraie are as under: "Whereas, you have started secessionist activities in the year 1960 and in order to materialize your ideology, you jointed Jamait-i-Islami. However, joining the said organization was a camouflage to disguise your antinational and secessionist activities, which you carried out discreetly by having contacts with all the like minded elements in the valley. You have been affiliated with various secessionist movements started at different times in the valley. You have been arrested several time but detention while invoking of normal law; has not been sufficient to deter you from carrying out your secessionist agenda. Whereas, you have misused your knowledge and capabilities being a post-Graduate from Aligarh Muslim University for promoting the antinational and secessionist ideology. You have been arrested several time but detention while invoking of normal law; has not been sufficient to deter you from carrying out your secessionist agenda. Whereas, you have misused your knowledge and capabilities being a post-Graduate from Aligarh Muslim University for promoting the antinational and secessionist ideology. After getting affiliated with Jamait-i-Islami, You developed proximity with these elements in Jel who were pursuing anti-national ideology and in this process you developed very close proximity with Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who is considered to be a harder liner in the field. Since then you have remained in close association with S.A. Shah Geelani and are considered to be his closest lieutenant. You are translating every secessionist idea conceived by SAS Gelani into action by chalking out the programmes, mobilizing the cadres and arranging other logistics required for (sic) such secessionist activities. After the formation of Tehrik-i-Huriyat Kashmir by SAS Geelani, you being a close associate of Mr. Geelani, were appointed as General Secretary of the newly floated secessionist organization. Since then you have been camping at the Hqrs. of Tehrik-i-Hurriyat Kashmir at Hyderpora. In a short span of time you have emerged as one of the top ranking secessionist leaders in the valley who holds a sway in the secessionist circles and is considered to be a major influence on the ideology of Syed Ali Shah Geelani. You have also been instrumental in gathering a large number of released militants at the platform of Tehrik-i-Hurriyat Kashmir, which is discreetly carrying out agenda of various pro Pak terrorist organizations. You have been looking after the overall functioning of Tehrik-i-Hurriyat Kashmir since its inception. With the creation of APUC (G) group you have emerged us one of the prominent secessionist figures advocating a hard line approach for the solution of so called Kashmir issue and you wield a considerable clout in secessionist and terrorist circles and because of your influence a large number of hard line secessionist elements like Masrat Alam Bhat. Firdous Ahmed shah and others have joined APHC (G) group. You always advocate confrontationist approach for addressing the so called Kashmir issue. At every available opportunity you malign the image of India among the general masses and instigate the public to rise against the Indian Union and the State Government. Firdous Ahmed shah and others have joined APHC (G) group. You always advocate confrontationist approach for addressing the so called Kashmir issue. At every available opportunity you malign the image of India among the general masses and instigate the public to rise against the Indian Union and the State Government. Whereas, you possess considerable organizational capabilities, which are is using them for strengthening the organizational structure of Tehrik-i-Hurriyat Kashmir and APHC (G) group, which is an amalgam of secessionist parties known for its hard line anti-national approach. At every available opportunity you exhort the general public to raise a voice against India and in support of secessionism. You were at your criminal best during the recent agitation which started against the diversion of land to SASB, which to a large extent had got subsided when the order of diversion was cancelled, but you along with your other associates exploited the sentiments of the public and instigated them to participate in anti-India demonstrations. In this regard you along with other like minded secessionist elements chalked out a strategy whereby a series of anti-national demonstrations were carried out at Baramulla, Srinagar Pampore, Iddgah and other places of the valley. During these anti-national demonstrations you along with your other associates managed to create a surcharged atmosphere wherein besides creating a law and order problem the organizers, which include you as well, instigated the general public to resort to anti-national, inflammatory and pro Azadi sloganeering. The gullible public was exploited to such an extent that human life and property was endangered. In order to prevent the loss of human life and property, besides protecting the national interest, prohibitory orders have been imposed, but once to prohibitory orders are withdrawn, there are well founded apprehensions that you will again indulge in similar anti-national activities as mentioned above. In order to stop you from indulging in activities, prejudicial to the maintenance of security of State and public order, your detention under the provisions of PSA, at this stage, has become imperative. It is clear that your activities are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State. Under such compelling circumstances, it has become imperative to detain you under Public Safety Act, 1978 for which orders are being issued separately." 49. It is clear that your activities are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State. Under such compelling circumstances, it has become imperative to detain you under Public Safety Act, 1978 for which orders are being issued separately." 49. The allegations mainly are that the detenu along with other like minded secessionist elements chalked out a strategy whereby a series of anti-national demonstrations were carried out at Baramulla, Srinagar Pampore, Iddgah and other places of the valley. During these anti-national demonstrations he along with his other associates managed to create a surcharged atmosphere wherein besides creating a law and order problem the organizers, instigated the general public to resort to anti-national, inflammatory and pro Azadi sloganeering. Though the allegations are made but the details of these activities is not given any where. 50. The allegations, though on the face of it appear to be serious, the grounds do not contain the details thereof so that the detenu could submit his reply to the same and make a representation. It has been held in Mohd. Yousuf Rather v. State of J and K AIR 1979 SC 1925, that if the statement of facts contains any ground of detention which is such that it is not possible for the detenu to clearly understand what exactly is the allegation against him, and he is thereby prevented from making an effective representation, it does not require much argument to hold that one such vague ground is sufficient to justify the contention that his fundamental right under clause (5) of Art. 22 of the Constitution has been violated and the order of detention is bad for that reason alone. Reference in this connection may also be made to the decisions in Tarapada De v. State of West Bengal 1951 SCR 212; Shibban Lal Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1954 SCR 418; Rameshwar Lal v. State of Bihar, (1968) 2 SCR 505: Motilal Jain v. State of Bihar, (1968) 3 SCR 587 and Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, (1969) 2 SCR 635. 51. This court has also zealously guarded this right of the detenus. 52. 51. This court has also zealously guarded this right of the detenus. 52. In Manzoor Ahnad Ganai v. State and ors 1979 SLJ J&K 233, it was held that it is incumbent on the detaining authority to communicate to the detenue the grounds on which the order for his detention has been made and the detaining authority shall also afford the detenue an earliest opportunity for making a representation against the order to the Govt. The Grounds of detention must be clear and definite otherwise fight to make a representation under Article 22 (5) of the constitution becomes illusory. The ground must contain sufficient details to enable the detenue to make an effective representation. In this case it was held that when a speech is branded highly inflammatory and objectionable the detenue must be specifically informed about the date on which and the place where he is alleged to have made such a speech. 53. Where one of the grounds of the detention did not disclosed exact date of occurrence, such ground was held vague in Mohd. Hafeez v. The State of J&K & Ors. 1985 SLJ J&K 77. Reference may also be made to Molvi Munawar v. State 1988 SLJ 55 and Nazir v. State 2001 (I) SLJ 103. 54. It is next argued by the Id. Counsel for the detenus that the detaining authority has not furnished to the detenues the material relied upon ay such authority. 55. On going through the order of detention and the record I find due force and substance in the submissions. 56. All the four detention orders, impugned in the present petitions, show that the detaining authority has derived satisfaction on the record received by him from Senior Superintendent of Police. Srinagar. There is no such material on the detention record submitted to this Court by the State nor has am such record been furnished to the detenu. This fact is evident from the note endorsed by the executing officers on the order of detention itself. 57. In the case of Syed Aasiya Indrabi, warrant of detention has been executed by one SI Gulshan Akhtar, SHO Womens Police Station, Rambagh. The SHO has while executing the warrant read over the contents of the warrant to the detenue. Neither the grounds of detention have been read over to the detenu nor have any other document been given to her. The SHO has while executing the warrant read over the contents of the warrant to the detenue. Neither the grounds of detention have been read over to the detenu nor have any other document been given to her. The endorsement made by the order is as under: "In compliance to Distt. Magistrate, Srinagar Order No: - DMS/PSA/l6-2008 Dtd 27-8-2008 ISI Gulshan Akhtar SHO Womens Rambagh taken into the custody one female detenue namely Mrs Syed Aaisya Anerabi w/o Ashaq Hussain Faqtoo R/o Soura from Womens Rambagh today as on 28/08/2008 for execution of the P.S.A warrant. The contents of warrant was heart upon her in the language in Kashmiri, Urdu, English, she knows fully. In taking of that she put her signature at below. [A] She alongwith P.S.A warrant handed over to Central Jail authority for her lodgment u/PSA". 58. Similarly in the case of Shabir Ahmad Shah and Muhammad Ashraf, the order of detention has been executed by Gh. Mohd. Bhat ASI 8809/NGO P/S Saddar. He has made endorsement in this behalf at the back of the order of detention. The officer has in the endorsements stated that the `contents overleaf have been read over and explained to detenue in urdu/English language. These endorsements show that the detenue not been provided with any document. These also show even the grounds of detention have not been explained to the detenues. 59. In the case of Mehraj-ud-Din Kalwal, the order has been executed by one S.I. Kuldeep Koul P.S. Nowgam. The officer has in his report, endorsed at the back of the order, stated that the contents of warrant `was heart upon him in the language in kashmiri. English he knows fully. So in this case too, the detenu has not been provided with any record of grounds of detention. 60. The State has placed on record affidavit of one Mohammad Ayub in order to show that the contents of the grounds of detention were read over and explained to the detenu. I carried Advocate General states that this affidavit would show that the requirements of the law have been complied with, safeguards adhered to and the purpose achieved. He has in this behalf relied on Rustum Wani v. State of J&K 2002(2) S.L.J 479 and Showkat Ahmad Malik v. State 2003(II) S.L.J 371. 61. I carried Advocate General states that this affidavit would show that the requirements of the law have been complied with, safeguards adhered to and the purpose achieved. He has in this behalf relied on Rustum Wani v. State of J&K 2002(2) S.L.J 479 and Showkat Ahmad Malik v. State 2003(II) S.L.J 371. 61. In Rustum Wani v. State of J & K 2002(2) S.L.J 479 it was held that non-supply of grounds to the detenu in the language he understands is not mandatory when the detenue is illiterate and the grounds have been explained to him in the language he understands. 62. In Showkat Ahmad Malik v. State 2003(11) S.L.J 371 it was held that non supply of translated script of grounds of detention in the language which the detenu understands does not render the detention illegal if the detenue is illiterate and instead of supplying such translated copy, grounds of detention are explained to the detenue properly and fully in the language he understands. 63. Both these authorities are not applicable to the present cases as here even the grounds of detention have not been read over and explained to the detenues. In view of the endorsements made by the often who executed the warrants and took the detenu into preventive detention, I do not find any reliance can be placed on the affidavit of Mohammad Ayub. The affidavit gets contradicted by the reports of the executing officers and it appears the affidavit is after thought and has been prepared to cover up the lacunas and the objections taken by the detenues in this behalf 64. In Ibrahim Ahmad Batti v. State of Gujarat AIR 1982 SC 1500 it was held that all documents, statements and other materials incorporated in the grounds by reference and which have influenced the mind of the detaining authority in arriving at the requisite subjective satisfaction must be furnished to the detenu in a script or language which he understands and failure to do either of the two things would amount to a breach of the two duties cast on the detaining authority under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution. 65. In Ghulam Mohd. 65. In Ghulam Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1999 SC 3051 it was held that 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 detenu 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. It was held that the words "grounds" used in clause (5) of Article 22 means not only the narration or conclusions of facts, but also all materials on which those facts or conclusions which constitute "grounds" are based. 66. In Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Govt. of Kerala, AIR 1986 SC 687, in which an order of detention was passed under Sections 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, Supreme Court, while examining the concept of "grounds" used in Article 22(5), observed that the word "ground" has to receive an interpretation which would keep it meaningfully in tune with the contemporary which would keep it meaningfully in tune with the contemporary notions. It was explained that the expression "grounds" includes not only conclusions of facts but also all the "basic facts" on which those conclusions were founded. 67. The issue was considered by the Supreme Court recently in Union of India v. Rama Bhandari Cr. Appeal No. 1468 of 2008 SLP. (Criminal) No. 6803 of 2006 decided on 16.9.2008 where the Apex Court held that on account of the non-supply of the documents, the detenu was prevented from making an effective representation against his detention. 68. Since the documents have not been furnished to the detenus and even the grounds of detention have not been explained to them, I find the detenus were prevented to make representation against their detention. The detention becomes invalid even on this ground alone. 69. 68. Since the documents have not been furnished to the detenus and even the grounds of detention have not been explained to them, I find the detenus were prevented to make representation against their detention. The detention becomes invalid even on this ground alone. 69. In Raziya Umar Bakshi v. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1751 it was held that the service of the grounds of detention on the detenu is a very precious constitutional right and where the grounds are couched in a language which is to known to the detenu, unless the contents of the grounds are fully explained and translated to the detenu, it will tantamount to not serving the grounds of detention to the detenu and would thus vitiate the detention ex facie. The court held: "In this view of the matter, the detention becomes invalid on this ground alone. I would however like to observe that in cases where the detaining authority is satisfied that the grounds are couched in a language which is not known to the detenu, a translated script is given to him and the grounds bear some sort of a certificate to show that the grounds have been explained to the detenu in the language which he understands. A bare denial at the stage when Habeas Corpus petition is filed in the court by the detaining authority that these formalities were observed would be (sic) consequence particularly when it is not supported by any document or by any affidavit of the person who had done the job of explaining or translation". 70. In Nainmal Partap Mal Shah v. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 2129 the detenu stated that he did not know the English language and, therefore, could not understand the grounds of detention, nor he was given a copy of the grounds duly translated in vernacular language. In the counter-Affidavit the detaining authority suggested that as the detenu had signed a number of documents in English, it must be presumed that he was fully conversant with English. Rejecting the contention it was held by the Supreme Court that merely because he may have signed some documents, it could not be presumed, in absence of cogent material, that he had working knowledge of English and under those circumstances there had been clear violation of the constitutional provisions of Article 22(5) so as to vitiate the order the detention. 71. 71. In Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v., Union of India AIR 1981 SC 728, the detenu did not know English but the grounds of detention were drawn up in English and the detaining authority in affidavit stated that the Police Inspector while serving the grounds of detention fully explained the grounds in Gujarati to the detenu. Admittedly, no translation of the grounds of detention into Gujarati was given to the detenu. It was held that there was no sufficient compliance with the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution which required that the grounds of detention must be communicated to the detenu. "Communicate" is a strong word. It requires that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds should be imparted effectively and fully to the detenu in writing in a language which he understands, so as to enable him to make a purposeful and effective representation. If the grounds are only verbally explained to the detenu and nothing in writing is left with him in a language which he understands, then that purpose is not served, and the constitution mandate in Article 22(5) is infringed. 72. In Surjeet Singh v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 1153, the petitioner, being served the detention order and the grounds in English, contended that English was not a language which he understood and that this factor rendered it necessary for the grounds of detention to be served on him in Hindi which was his mother tongue and that the same having not been done, there was in law no communication of such grounds to him; and it was held that under those facts and circumstances it had not been shown that the petitioner had the opportunity which the law contemplated in his favour of making an effective representation against his detention, which was, therefore, illegal and liable to be set aside. 73. The contention of the respondents that the grounds were read over and explained to the detenues would not matter as even if this contention is accepted it would amount to mere a formality as there is nothing in the report of the executing officers to show that the grounds also were given to the detenues nor is there any material to show that a translation of the grounds of detention in the language, which the detenues understand, were given to them. In Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack, AIR 1969 SC 43, it was held that merely oral-explanation of an order without supplying him a translation in a script or language which the detenu understood amounted to a denial or right of being communicated the grounds. 74. In Kubic Dariusz v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 605 it was held: "It is settled law that the communication of the grounds which is required by the earlier part of the clause is for the purpose of enabling the detenue to make a representation, the right to which is guaranteed by the latter part of the clause. A communication in this context must, therefore, mean imparting to the detenu sufficient and effective knowledge of the: facts and circumstances on which the order of detention is passed, that is, of the prejudicial acts which the authorities attribute to him. 75. Similarly in Powanamnul v. State of Tamil Nadu 1999(2) SCC 413 it was held that the amplitude of the safeguard embodied in Art. 22(5) extends not merely to oral explanation of the grounds of detention but also to supplying their translation in script or language which is understandable to the detenue. 76. The law requires that not only the grounds of detention should be supplied to the detenu but he/she should be informed about his/her right to make a representation to the Government. Perusal of the endorsements referred to would show that the respondents have not informed the detenus about this right. The right of the detenu to make a representation under Article 22(5) would be in many cases of little avail if the detenue is not informed of his right. Reference in this behalf may be made to Wasiudin Ahmad v. District Magistrate AIR 1981 SC. There are, therefore, sufficient grounds to hold that the detaining authority has not, complied with the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Constitution, which has rendered the detentions bad in law. 77. Relying on State of Maharashtra v. Santosh Shankar Acharya AIR 2000 SC 2504. Mr. There are, therefore, sufficient grounds to hold that the detaining authority has not, complied with the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Constitution, which has rendered the detentions bad in law. 77. Relying on State of Maharashtra v. Santosh Shankar Acharya AIR 2000 SC 2504. Mr. Qayoom would argue that where an order of detention is issued by the District Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that he is required to forthwith report the factum of detention together with the grounds and materials to the State Government and notwithstanding the fact that the Act itself specifically provides for making a representation to the State Government under Section 13(1), the said detaining authority continues to be the detaining; authority until: the order of detention issued by him is approved by the State Government within a period of 10 days from the date of issuance of detention order. Consequently, until the said detention order is approved by the State Government the detaining authority can entertain a representation from a detenu and in exercise of his power could amend, vary or rescind the order. Non-communication of the fact to the detenu that he could make a representation to the detaining authority so long as the order of detention has not been approved by the State Government in a case where an order of detention is issued by an officer other than the State Government would constitute an infraction of a valuable right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. 78. Learned Advocate General would not agree with the contentions of Mr. Qayoom. He would refer to sections of the Act to submit that the Act gives right to the detenu to make representation to the Government only and if this right was provided to the detenu by the detaining authority, it would amount to sufficient compliance of the provisions of law. 79. When it has been found that the detaining authority has is followed the basic constitutional safeguards and has not explained the grounds of detention and provided the relevant material to the detenues and on that basis the order of detention is not proper, I find there is no need to consider this argument of the counsel for the petitioner. 80. When it has been found that the detaining authority has is followed the basic constitutional safeguards and has not explained the grounds of detention and provided the relevant material to the detenues and on that basis the order of detention is not proper, I find there is no need to consider this argument of the counsel for the petitioner. 80. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order no: Home: PBV/714/11/2008 dated 5.9.2008 by means of which the lodgment of the detenus has been changed from Central Jail, Srinagar to various jails shown in the said order. As noticed above he has challenged the order on the basis of law laid down by the Supreme Court on A.K. Roy v. Union: of India AIR 1982 SC 740. 81. Learned Advocate General vehemently opposing this plea has submitted that under section 10 of the Act, any person in respect of whom a detention order has been made shall be liable to be detained in such place as the Government may specify. Such a person can, under the orders of the Government be removed from one place of detention to another place of detention. The power to fix the lodgement vests in the detaining authority and power to regulate the place and the conditions of detention vests with the executive. He has relying on Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal AIR 1992 SC 96 stated that it is not the duty of the Court either to enlarge the scope of the legislation or the intention of the legislature when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. The Court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation for the very good reason that it has no power to legislate. The Court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there. 82. This is settled now, argues Mr. Raina, in view of the judgments of the Apex Court, that only the Executive has got power to decided the lodgement of a detenu. Learned Advocate General has in support of his submissions referred to Suhail Ahmad Kataria v. State 2006 (II) S.L.J 534. Regarding the binding force of precedents he refers to S.I. Rooplal v. Lt. Governor, Delhi AIR 2000 SC 594. 83. Since it has been found that the detention order cannot maintain, I find there is no need to consider this plea too. 84. Regarding the binding force of precedents he refers to S.I. Rooplal v. Lt. Governor, Delhi AIR 2000 SC 594. 83. Since it has been found that the detention order cannot maintain, I find there is no need to consider this plea too. 84. In view of the above discussion I find that there has been violation of the safeguards provided by the Act and the constitution so far the rights of the detenues is conceded. This has resulted in prejudice to them. The orders of detention impugned in these petitions cannot, therefore, stand. 85. Accordingly all these four Orders of detention, order No. DMS/PSA/16/2008 dated 27.8.2008 order No. DMS/PSA/19/2008 dated 30.8.2008 order No. DMS/PSA/17/2008 dated 27.8.2008 and order No. DMS/PSA/18/2008 dated 29.8.2008 are hereby quashed. The detenus namely Aasiya Indrabi, Shabir Ahmad Shah, Mehraj-ud-din Kalwal and Mohammad Ashraf Sahraie be released from custody in these cases forthwith provided they are not required in any other case.