Preventive detention based on vague grounds violates Article 22(5) and is invalid.

The petitioner challenged detention order No. DMS/PSA/21/2025, dated 7 May 2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Srinagar.

The respondents alleged that he was in contact with persons promoting anti-national activities, had instigated youth, and provided logistical support to terrorists and overground workers (OGWs).

The detention warrant was executed on 11 May 2025.

The petitioner argued, among other grounds, that the detention grounds were vague and that relied-upon material had not been supplied.

The Court considered the vagueness challenge and the detention record

Whether the grounds of detention were so vague and lacking in material particulars as to deprive the petitioner of an effective opportunity to make a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution

Whether the detention order could be sustained where the grounds and supporting material did not specify the alleged contacts, persons instigated, or terrorist/OGW beneficiaries of the petitioner’s alleged logistical support

Article 22(5) of the Constitution guarantees a detenu an effective opportunity to make a representation against detention; grounds that are vague and omit necessary particulars frustrate that right and vitiate the detention order.

The Court relied on Jahangirkhan Fazalkhan Pathan v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad and Another, (1989) 3 SCC 590, for the principle that detention on vague grounds deprives the detenu of the right to make an effective representation

The grounds alleged that the petitioner had contact with persons encouraging anti-national activity, instigated youth, and associated with terrorists and OGWs while providing logistical support. However, they did not identify when or with whom the alleged contacts occurred, which youth were instigated, or which terrorists or OGWs received support.

The Court also noted that the cited extracts from patrol books did not record any illegal activity attributable to the petitioner. These omissions made the allegations vague and deprived the petitioner of an effective opportunity to respond, violating Article 22(5)

It allowed the petition, quashed detention order No. DMS/PSA/21/2025, and directed the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith unless he was required in connection with another case. The detention record was directed to be returned to the respondents’ counsel