JUDGMENT : 1. District Magistrate, Jammu (hereinafter called ‘Detaining Authority’) in exercise of powers under Section 8(1) (a) of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, passed the detention Order No. 21 of 2022 Dated 03.12.2022 (for short ‘impugned order’), in terms whereof the detenue namely Sehran Nawaz Sheikh S/O Ghulam Abbas Sheikh R/O H.No.76, Ward No.13, Malipeth Kishtwar (for short ‘detenue’) has been detained. 2. The impugned detention order has been challenged through the medium of the instant Habeas Corpus Petition, allegedly having been passed in breach of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India read with Section 13(1) of the Public Safety Act, 1978. 3. It has been pleaded in the petition that the detaining authority-respondent No.2 has not applied its mind properly while passing the detention order; that the detenue has been incapacitated in filing a representation as the grounds of detention are not in a language which could be understood by the detenue; that the detenue is not an English literate person and understands only Kashmiri language but the order of detention is in English and it is not possible for him to understand such a hyper technical language; and that the order of detention and the connected documents annexed with the petition clearly show violation of right of the detenue guaranteed in terms of the Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India; that neither the petitioner is threat to the public order nor he has committed any such crime which has disturbed the society at large; that the impugned detention order has been passed by the respondent detaining authority on imaginary grounds and in colorable exercise of power as grounds thereof do not indicate any such activity which fall within parameters of Public Safety Act; that grounds of detention are replica of the dossier with interplay of some words here and there. 4. 4. Respondents in their counter affidavits have stated that the detenue was ordered to be detained for maintenance of ‘public order’ and had he been let free, there would have been every likelihood of his re-indulging in anti-national/criminal activities; that the power of preventive detention is different from punishment as the preventive detention is aimed at stopping the illegal activities of an individual, which, otherwise, under common law both criminal/civil cannot be stopped and the said individual creates a havoc in the society which leads to public disorder, disturbing peace, prosperity, tranquility, integrity and security of the UT of J&K that the petitioner tried to create communal tension and usually remained busy in illegal activities. It is being stated that the detenue is habitual of committing heinous crime and is a pawn in the hands of terror handlers operating from Pakistan in order to carry out the terror activities in Jammu which would ultimately lead to the disturbance of ‘Public Order’ and communal harmony; that the past history of the detenue and his efforts to radicalize the youths in order to enhance the terrorist activities as per the instruction of his Pak handlers, the secret verification of the detenue was also conducted through sister agencies and the report of District Special Branch Jammu reveals that the detenue is highly motivated and is in regular touch with Pak ISI and has the capacity to step up the terror activities in Jammu. It is also being stated that the petitioner is involved in numerous criminal activities, was not likely to desist from his anti-national/criminal activities which were prejudicial to the maintenance of the Public Order.’ 5. It is also being stated that the petitioner is involved in numerous criminal activities, was not likely to desist from his anti-national/criminal activities which were prejudicial to the maintenance of the Public Order.’ 5. Petitioner, in his rejoinder has stated that his brother, namely Tosif Nawaz was killed by Kishtwar Police and FIR No. 21/2017 dated 13.02.2017 was registered against some of the policemen for the commission of offence punishable under section 304/337 RPC and on being not satisfied with the investigation of the aforesaid FIR, the mother of the petitioner filed OWP 1962/2018 in which notices were issued and the status report was called and the said writ petition was disposed of on 22.02.2019; that the respondents particularly the police of District Kishtwar started harassing the petitioner as well as his other family members to withdraw the aforesaid petition and when they did not withdraw the said petition Kishtwar Police, started involving the petitioner in different cases; that a false and frivolous case bearing FIR No. 222/2017 U/S 307/353 RPC was registered against the petitioner on the ground that while traffic naka near police station Kishtwar, the petitioner assaulted upon the naka party with a toka with an intention to murder and the petitioner was arrested and after getting the bail in the said FIR, he was again arrested in FIR No. 307/2018 U/S 3 EAO lodged in Police Station Kishtwar dated 07.12.2018 on the allegation that the petitioner is working as an enemy agent for ISI of Pakistan and supplying photographs and videos of establishment of police and other security forces to the ISI of Pakistan, but due to non-availability of any evidence against the petitioner, the respondents could not produce the challan before the competent court of law within time. 6. 6. It is alleged that SSP Kishtwar submitted a dossier dated 30.05.2019 to District Magistrate Kishtwar for issuance of detention order under the provision of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 and on the basis of said dossier, the petitioner was taken into custody and was lodged in District Jail Kathua; that the said detention order dated 31.05.2019 on being challenged, was set aside and the respondents were directed to release the petitioner forthwith; that the release order was handed over to the Superintendent of District Jail, Kathua, but the petitioner was not released and the brother of the petitioner was informed by the jail officials that the petitioner has been handed over under arrest to SHO P/S Kishtwar; that the petitioner moved a bail application on 04.03.2020 before the CJM Kishtwar in which the police submitted the report that the petitioner is involved in FIR No. 174/2016 of P/S Kishtwar u/s 153-A/120-B/124-A IPC; that bail application was filed before the Sessions Court at Kishtwar and vide order dated 10.03.2020, the bail was granted to the petitioner in FIR No. 174/2016, but the petitioner was not released. 7. Petitioner was again detained in preventive custody on 11.03.2020, based on the three cases over which earlier detention had been ordered, by District Magistrate Kishtwar. However, this detention order was revoked by the Government vide Govt. Order No. Home/PB-V/58/2020 dated 20.03.2020; that the petitioner was detained again and again on the same grounds which is evident from the perusal of the detention orders stated herein above; that in FIR No. 278/2021 lodged u/ss 121 IPC, 18/20/30/38 and 39 UA(P) Act, the petitioner was discharged at the stage of framing of charge which shows that there was no material against the petitioner and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the said FIR and lastly it was prayed that the petition be allowed. 8. Learned counsel for the detenue, while being heard, makes reference to the grounds of the detention and states that on a cursory look on the same it is manifest that same are vague. 8. Learned counsel for the detenue, while being heard, makes reference to the grounds of the detention and states that on a cursory look on the same it is manifest that same are vague. It is also submitted that the Detaining Authority on the basis of dossier submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu, without application of mind and without evaluating the allegations alleged against the detenue in the said dossier, copy of which was not even provided to the detenue, proceeded to pass impugned detention order whereby the detenue has been detained and directed to be lodged at Central Jail, Jammu. In addition, learned counsel submitted that the allegations levelled against the detenue are totally vague as nothing specific has been stated in the grounds of detention. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the impugned detention order has been passed by the respondent-detaining authority on imaginary grounds and in colourable exercise of power as grounds thereof do not indicate any such activity which fall within the parameters of Public Safety Act and the grounds of detention are replica of the dossier with interplay of some words here and there 10. In rebuttal, learned Dy AG submits that the record reveals that there is no vagueness in the grounds of detention. The procedural safeguards prescribed under the provisions of Public Safety Act and the rights guaranteed to the detenue under the Constitution have strictly been followed in the instant case. The detenue has been furnished whole of the material, as was required, and was also made aware of his right to make representation to the detaining authority as well as government, against his detention. 11. Heard learned counsel for both the sides at length and considered the record. 12. Personal liberty is one of the most cherished freedoms, perhaps more important than the other freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. It was for this reason that the Founding Fathers enacted the safeguards in Article 22 in the Constitution so as to limit the power of the State to detain a person without trial, which may otherwise pass the test of Article 21, by humanising the harsh authority over individual liberty. In a democracy that of ours, governed by the rule of law, the drastic power to detain a person without trial for security of the State and/or maintenance of public order, must be strictly construed. In a democracy that of ours, governed by the rule of law, the drastic power to detain a person without trial for security of the State and/or maintenance of public order, must be strictly construed. However, where individual liberty comes into conflict with an interest of the security of the State or public order, then the liberty of the individual must give way to the larger interest of the nation. 13. Before appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to note that the procedural requirements are the only safeguards available to the detenue since the Court cannot go behind the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as has been laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in a case titled Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh Vs B.K. Jha &Anr., reported as (1987) 2 SCC 22 . The procedural requirements are, therefore, to be strictly complied with, if any value is to be attached to the liberty of the subject and the constitutional rights guaranteed to him in that regard. 14. The requirement of law is that whole of the record, on which the detention order is based, has to be made available to the detenue in the language that he understands. As per the execution report, he has been furnished copies of detention order (01leaf), notice of detention (01leaf), grounds of detention (04 leaves), Dossier of detention (07 leaves), Copies of FIR, statements of witnesses and other related relevant documents (104 leaves) [Total 117 leaves]. However, he has not been provided with copies of daily dairies etc. as well as the material relied upon by the detaining authority under which the petitioner has been detained. The detenue, thus cannot be said to be provided with whole of the material which based his detention, so as to make an effective and meaningful representation. The failure on the part of the detaining authority to supply material renders detention illegal and unsustainable. 15. The detention record, as produced, reveals that the detenue was involved in following cases registered at Police Station, Kishtwar vide:- (i) FIR No. 150/2016; U/S 341/354/323 RPC; (ii) FIR No. 222/2017; U/S 307/353 RPC, 4/25 Indian Arms Act; (iii) FIR No. 307/2018; U/S 3-EAO Act; and at P/S Gandhi Ngr, Jammu vide (iv) FIR No. 278/2021; U/S 120-B/121 IPC, 18/20/23(2)/39 UAPA. Involvement of the detenue in the aforementioned cases appears to have heavily weighed with the detaining authority while passing detention order. 16. A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in a case titled “Sushanta Kumar Banik versus State of Tripura & Ors” (2022 SCC Online SC 1333), while dealing with preventive detention, held on 30.09.2022 in paragraph 28, as follows: “The preventive detention is a serious invasion of personal liberty and the normal methods open to a person charged with commission of any offence to disprove the charge or to prove his innocence at the trial are not available to the person preventively detained and, therefore, in prevention detention jurisprudence whatever little safeguards the Constitution and the enactments authorizing such detention provide assume utmost importance and must be strictly adhered to.” 17. It shall also be quite apposite to reproduce the following portions from Paras 3 and 5 of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case titled “Raziya Umar Bakshi Vs Union of India & Ors.” ( AIR 1980 SC 1751 ): “3.......The service of the ground of detention on the detenu is a very precious constitutional right and where the grounds are couched in a language which is not 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. 5..........in cases where the detaining authority is satisfied that the grounds are couched in a language which is not known to the detenu, it must see to it that the grounds are explained 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.” 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of “Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham V. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ( AIR 1999 SC 3051 ), has also held as under: “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 detenu to make a representation against the order of detention. ( AIR 1999 SC 3051 ), has also held as under: “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 detenu to make a representation against the order of detention. 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.” 19. Vide impugned order the Detaining Authority has communicated to the detenue his right to represent against the order to the government but he has not been informed as to whether representation can be made to the detaining authority. Also no time limit was communicated, in which, he could make a representation, till approval of the detention order by the Government. In a case of National Security Act, titled “Jitendra Vs. Dist. Magistrate, Barabanki & Ors.”, reported as 2004 Cri.L.J 2967, the Division Bench of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, has held:- “10. We make no bones in observing that a partial communication of a right (in the grounds of detention) of the type in the instant case, wherein the time limit for making a representation is of essence and is not communicated in the grounds of detention, would vitiate the right fundamental right guaranteed to the detenue under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, namely, of being communicated, as soon as may be the grounds of detention.” 20. This is another reason, as to why the impugned order would be vitiated since the detenue’s right to make a representation to the detaining authority was only available to him till approval of detention order by the Government, it follows as a logical imperative that the detaining authority should have communicated to the detenue in the communication to him, the time limit, in which, he could make a representation to it i.e., till the approval of the detention order by the State Government. 21. 21. The detention of the detenue has been ordered on the basis of the fact that he is in contact with the terror handlers operating from Pakistan in order to carry out the terror activities in Jammu and target high profile individuals with a aim to disturb public peace and communal harmony. Just being past history of the petitioner cannot justify his preventive detention. The live and proximate link between the past conduct of the detenue and the imperative need to detain, have to be harmonised to rely upon the alleged illegal activities of the detenue. Old and stale incidents shall be of no use as has been held in “Sama Aruna Vs State of Telangana & Anr.” reported as (2018) 12 SCC 150 . Relevant paragraph No.16 is extracted as under: ““16. Obviously, therefore, the power to detain, under the Act of 1986 can be exercised only for preventing a person from engaging in or pursuing or taking some action which adversely affects or is likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order; or for preventing him from making preparations for engaging in such activities. There is little doubt that the conduct or activities of the detenu in the past must be taken into account for coming to the conclusion that he is going to engage in or make preparations for engaging in such activities, for many such persons follow a pattern of criminal activities. But the question is how far back? There is no doubt that only activities so far back can be considered as furnish a cause for preventive detention in the present. That is, only those activities so far back in the past which lead to the conclusion that he is likely to engage in or prepare to engage in such activities in the immediate future can be taken into account. In Golam Hussain vs State of W.B, this Court observed as follows : (SCC p.535 para 5) “No authority, acting rationally, can be satisfied, subjectively or otherwise, of future mischief merely because long ago the detenu had done something evil. To rule otherwise is to sanction a simulacrum of a statutory requirement. But no mechanical test by counting the months of the interval is sound. To rule otherwise is to sanction a simulacrum of a statutory requirement. But no mechanical test by counting the months of the interval is sound. It all depends on the nature of the acts relied on, grave and determined or less serious and corrigible, on the length of the gap, short or long, on the reason for the delay in taking preventive action, like information of participation being available only in the course of an investigation. We have to investigate whether the causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case”. Suffice it to say that in any case, incidents which are said to have taken place nine to fourteen years earlier, cannot form the basis for being satisfied in the present that the detenu is going to engage in, or make preparation for engaging in such activities”. 22. Indisputably, the brother of the petitioner was killed in custody in 2017 on 13.02.2017 regarding which a case was registered vide FIR No. 21/2017 for the commission of offences punishable under sections 304/337 RPC against the police officers/officials. The detenue was firstly detained under PSA on 31.05.2019 based on three FIRs registered at Police Station Kishtwar, however, same came to be quashed vide order dated 27.02.2020. The petitioner soon after that was again detained under second detention order passed by District Magistrate Kishtwar on 11.03.2020 based on the same facts and circumstances on which the earlier detention order had been passed. The Government, however, did not approve the detention order and revoked the same vide Govt. Order dated 20.03.2020, thereafter, vide impugned order dated 03.12.2022 the petitioner was ordered to be detained by District Magistrate Jammu based on the same FIRs registered at Police Station Kishtwar besides one more case which was registered at Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu vide FIR No. 278/2021. The admittedly had been discharged form the commission of offence in the charge-sheet arising out of FIR registered at Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and ordered to be released on 26.11.2022. The admittedly had been discharged form the commission of offence in the charge-sheet arising out of FIR registered at Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and ordered to be released on 26.11.2022. It appears that the respondent-police by repeated invocation of detention order wish to ensure that the petitioner remains in custody even if his first detention quashed by this Court, the second was revoked by the Government itself and he was ordered to be detained third time by District Magistrate Jammu and without making any reference to the earlier detention orders and result thereof from which it is explicitly clear that either the concerned police had not brought it to the notice of the detaining authority or the detaining authority had not considered all the facts relating to the detenue, which indicates the non application of mind by District Magistrate Jammu, while passing the detention order. 23. Reproducing the dossier prepared by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu in the order of detention, almost word by word; non furnishing of the whole of the material on which detention order was based; furnishing the material in English and not the language of the detenue; and not informing detenue of his right to make representation before the Detaining Authority within the statutory period, all reflect that the Detaining Authority has not applied its mind to draw the subjective satisfaction to detain the petitioner and detenue has also been deprived of his fundamental right to make effective and meaningful representation against the detention order to the Detaining Authority and the government. 24. For the foregoing reasons and the law discussed hereinabove, this petition is allowed. Impugned order of detention No. 21 of 2022 Dated 03.12.2022, passed by the District Magistrate, Jammu is, as such, quashed. The detenue namely Sehran Nawaz Sheikh S/O Ghulam Abbas Sheikh R/O H.No.76, Ward No.13, Malipeth Kishtwar, is ordered to be released from the preventive custody, forthwith, provided he is not required in connection with any other case(s). 25. Detention record, as produced, be returned to the learned Dy AG. 26. Writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.