Failure to communicate rejection of representation to detenu vitiates preventive detention for violation of procedural safeguards.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the failure of the respondents to communicate the rejection of the representation to the detenu vitiates the detention order

The court held

The Court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the non-communication of the rejection of the representation violates constitutional safeguards and vitiates the detention

It also directed

The Division Bench set aside the Writ Court’s judgment dated 22.08.2025 and quashed the detention order No. 22/DMA/PSA/DET/2024. The Court ordered the appellant to be released forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case

01Facts

The appellant was detained under Order No. 22/DMA/PSA/DET/2024 dated 20.05.2024, issued by the District Magistrate, Anantnag, under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, alleging activities prejudicial to state security

p. 1, 3

The appellant challenged this via a writ petition (HCP No. 242/2024), which was dismissed by the Writ Court on 22.08.2025

p. 1

The appellant contended that the detention grounds were a verbatim copy of the police dossier, relevant material was not furnished, and a representation filed by his father on 09.06.2024 was not properly processed

p. 2, 4

While the Home Department rejected the representation on 02.07.2024, there was no record that this decision was communicated to the detenu

p. 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the failure of the respondents to communicate the rejection of the representation to the detenu vitiates the detention order

p. 4, para 9

ii.2. Whether the Writ Court erred in failing to consider the procedural safeguard regarding the communication of the representation's outcome

p. 5, para 11

03Law Applied

The court applied Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, concerning the powers and procedures for preventive detention

p. 1

The court relied heavily on the constitutional and procedural safeguards enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur and others (2021)

p. 4

This precedent establishes that the state must not only decide a detenu's representation expeditiously but must also communicate the decision to the detenu; failure to do so strikes at the heart of procedural rights and fundamental guarantees

pp. 4-5, para 10

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 107

04Reasoning

The Court found that while the representation dated 30.05.2024 was rejected by the Home Department on 02.07.2024, the administrative record was devoid of any evidence that the appellant or his father were informed of this decision

p. 4, para 8

Applying the principle from Sarabjeet Singh Mokha, the Court reasoned that the right to make a representation is illusory if the outcome is not communicated, as it violates the procedural safeguards meant to balance the executive's wide powers of subjective satisfaction

pp. 4-5

The Court noted that the Writ Court had overlooked this "pivotal issue," rendering the prior dismissal of the writ petition unsustainable

p. 5, para 11

05Holding

The Court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the non-communication of the rejection of the representation violates constitutional safeguards and vitiates the detention

p. 4, para 9

p. 5, para 12

LawLens.Jammu and Kashmir High Court

Original Court PDF