JUDGMENT

SANJAY DHAR, J. –

1. The petitioner has challenged detention order No.16/DMB/PSA/ 2025 dated 07.05.2025, issued by District Magistrate, Baramulla-respondent No.2. In terms of the aforesaid order, Aijaz Ahmad Malik (“the detenue”) has been placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State.

2. The petitioner has contended that the detaining authority has issued the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind as the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and that the same have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent on which no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material which formed basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner. It has been further urged that the representation submitted against the detention order has not been considered by the respondents.

3. Upon being put to notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed reply affidavit, wherein they have contended that the activities of detenue are highly prejudicial to the security of the State. It is pleaded that whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority has been furnished to the detenue and contents of the same were read over and explained to him. It is further contented in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the impugned order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.

4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the impugned order, projected various grounds but his main thrust during the course of arguments was on the contention that the grounds of detention are vague and cryptic, on the basis of which no prudent man can make an effective representation.

6. In the above context, it would be apt to extract the grounds of detention:

“Reports received from confidential informants and intelligence agencies indicate that several terrorist groups are currently poised for filtration from launching pads across the Line of Control in Pakistan occupied Kashmir. You are believed to be assisting them in this endeavour. It has been further reported that you are covertly involved in anti-national activities across District Baramulla and are functioning as a guide for terrorists operating in the Uri belt, aiding their movement and ensuring safe passage through vulnerable areas.

You have also been found indulging in a range of illegal and subversive activities, including the strengthening of terrorist networks in the Kashmir Valley. You have acted as a courier for arms, ammunition, and other logistic support for anti-national elements, thereby directly contributing to militant operations. Intelligence inputs reveal that you carry messages among terrorists and are instrumental in laying the groundwork for their operations. These activities are prejudicial to the security and sovereignty of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

Intelligence reports clearly point to the fact that you have been receiving direct instructions from Pakistan occupied Kashmir-based anti-national handlers. You are executing these instructions in a clandestine manner so as to avoid detection by law enforcement agencies. By maintaining a low profile, you are attempting to operate below the radar, thereby creating challenges for the police and security forces in monitoring and controlling your actions.

The recent terror attack in Pahalgam, which resulted in the loss of innocent lives and injured multiple civilians, has once again highlighted the increasing threat posed by local overground workers who act as facilitators and sympathizers of terrorism. In addition, the continuous ceasefire violations along the Line of Control have created a tense and volatile security environment. Your association with anti-national elements in such a sensitive and vulnerable security scenario adds to the prevailing apprehension that you could be used by terrorist handlers to further their nefarious designs.”

7. A perusal of the above quoted extracts of the grounds of detention clearly shows that the same are vague lacking in material particulars. In the grounds of detention, there is no mention of the particulars of the places and the identity of the alleged anti-national elements, terrorists and handlers, with whom the petitioner has met and from whom he has received instructions. The particulars of the period when the detenue is alleged to have met these anti-national elements/terrorists etc. are also not mentioned in the grounds of detention. Thus, the grounds, being vague and lacking in material particulars, the detenue could not have made an effective representation against his detention. Article 22(5) mandates that each ground for detention must be individually specified and not vague, ensuring transparency and accountability in the detention process. The grounds must not be vague, indefinite or general. Vague allegations make it impossible for the detenu to understand the reasons and effectively challenge the detention.

8. A Division Bench of this Court in the recent case titled “Imran Rashid Rather vs. UT of J&K” 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 351 has, while deliberating upon the effect of vagueness of the grounds of detention on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, observed as under:-

“Therefore, this Court holds that vague and non-specific grounds of detention firstly, violates the fundamental right to life and personal liberty of the detenue under article 21 of the constitution as it summarily curtails the liberty of the citizen based on the subjective satisfaction of the executive which is an exceptional power as against the general law relating to arrest and detention. Secondly, it deprives the detenue of giving a specific rebuttal to the grounds of detention which may satisfy the detaining authority or the Government that his detention is unlawful and compels him to answer the grounds of detention as "it is incorrect" or "it is false" etc. Thirdly, vague and generalised grounds in the order of detention, smacks of arbitrariness on the part of the detaining authority rendering the subjective satisfaction arrived at as violative of article 14 of the constitution and fourthly, vague and non-specific grounds raise the impression that the same has been done deliberately in order to deprive the detenu of giving a precise rebuttal. Malafide in fact may be difficult to establish as they must be pleaded with specific facts, but the lack of bonafides 1State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma,1992 Supp(1) SCC 222, paragraph 49 - State of Punjab Vs. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 471, paragraph 9 -Pooja Batra Vs. Union of India and others, (2009) 5 SCC 296, paragraphs 18,40 and 41 may be presumed where the executive act results in the deprivation of personal liberty from a detention order based on vague grounds. In such cases, the lack of bonafides is to be presumed due to a cavalier or casual exercise of the authority to detain the citizen without any specific ill will or personal animosity. The lack of bonafides is on account of failure to take due care and act without introspection, blindly on the report of the SP without insisting on supporting material which justifies the deprivation of liberty.”

9. From the above analysis of the law, it is manifest that vagueness of grounds of detention strikes at the root of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority thereby vitiating the order of detention. On this ground alone, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.

10. For the afore-stated reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned detention order is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner from the preventive custody forthwith, provided he is not required in connection with any other case.

11. The record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents.

Petition allowed.

********