Saboor Ahmad Shergojri v. Union Territory of J&K through Principal Secretary to Home

Judgment

1. Through the medium of this writ petition, petitioner prays for quashment of detention Order No. 175/DMS/PSA/2023 dated 27.09.2023, passed by District Magistrate, Shopian – respondent no. 2 whereby detenu, namely, Saboor Ahmad Shergojri S/o Fayaz Ahmad Shergojri R/o Heffkuri, Tehsil Zainapora, District Shopian, has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the Security of the UT/Country, on the grounds made mention of therein. 2.

Learned counsel for petitioner has stated that the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague and indefinite and no prudent man can make an effective representation against these allegations inasmuch as the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with detenu and detaining authority has passed the impugned order of detention in a mechanical and casual manner without application of mind. It is also alleged 1 HCP no.122/2023 that the detenu is a hard core OGW, facilitator of Let/HM terrorist outfits and deeply involved in anti-national and anti-social activities in District Shopian. It is also alleged that the detenu has remained in propagating and promoting so called „Jihadi‟ ideology among the local youth especially of your adjacent villages which pose a great threat to the integrity, sovereignty of the country. Besides, the detenu being vital information provider to the terrorists regarding the movements of security forces and army but neither record nor any proof with regard to the allegations has been provided to the detenu. He has vehemently argued that a representation was made by father of detenu to respondents for releasing the detenu, but the record reveals that the same was neither considered and decided by respondents nor detenu was produced before Advisory Board for providing him an opportunity of being heard so that he could explain to the members of the Board that detenu is innocent and his order of detention deserves to be revoked and he be set at liberty. He also states that detenu has never associated himself with any terrorist organisation and he has never acted on the directions and signals of any persons whether inside or outside the Union. It is also stated that detaining authority while passing impugned detention order has mentioned that detenu is being placed under preventive detention as his activities are prejudicial to the Security of the UT/Country, whereas in the grounds of detention, at one place it is mentioned that the activities of the detenu are highly prejudicial to law and order and peace and tranquillity and at another place it is mentioned that the activities of the detenu are antinational, anti-social and prejudicial the security of UT of J&K/Country which reflects non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority because detention order is to be issued either for law and order or for Security of the State but not under both the heads and as a consequence of which impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 3. Respondents have filed reply affidavit, insisting therein that the activities indulged in by detenu are anti-national and anti-social and his activities pose a serious threat to the security situation prevailing in the district as he is involved in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country. The activities narrated in the grounds of detention have been reiterated in the reply/counter affidavit filed by 2 HCP no.122/2023 respondents. The factual averments that detenu was not supplied with relevant material relied upon in the grounds of detention have been refuted. It is insisted that all the relevant material, which has been relied upon by the detaining authority, was provided to the detenu at the time of execution of warrant. 4. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. Learned counsel for petitioner has stated that grounds of detention which is based on impugned detention order reflect the activity of the detenu prejudicial to the maintenance of peace and tranquillity yet has been detained under PSA for Security of State which reflects non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority. It is also stated that the detenu is not involved in any FIR nor respondents have disclosed any activity which would prejudice to the Security of State or law and order or Public Order, however, on vague grounds has been detained under Public Safety Act. 6. As already noted, it is contended by the learned counsel for detenu that the detaining authority, while passing the impugned detention order, was not certain as to on which ground the impugned order was to be passed because the detaining authority had made reference to both the expressions, namely, “activities prejudicial to the Security of State in the impugned detention order and in the grounds of detention “activities highly prejudicial to the law and order and peace and tranquillity at one place and in another place activities of the detenu are anti national, anti-social and prejudicial to the security of UT of J&K/Country.

7. Taking into account the submissions made by learned counsel for parties, it would be appropriate to say that the Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order or the security of the State, make an order directing that the person be detained. When the law providing for preventive detention permits detention of a person whose activities are prejudicial to defence, security of India or security of the State, it will be lawful to detain such person if any of his activities is considered by detaining authority affecting security of the State. [See: A. K. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710]. The security of the State can be put to danger by crimes of violence intended to overthrow the government. The expression “security of the State” includes economic security also. Those who commit economic offences do harm 3 HCP no.122/2023 to the national interest and economy of the State and can be detained under preventive detention. Counterfeiting of currency and putting the same in circulation destabilize the economy of the State ad it affects the security of the State. [Santokh Singh v. Delhi Administration, 1973 SC 1091; A.G. v.