Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation and Vague Grounds of Detention Render Preventive Detention Illegally.

The petitioner, Shahid Amin Ganie, was detained under Order No. 27/DMA/PSA/DET/2024 dated 24.10.2024, issued by the District Magistrate, Anantnag, under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act (PSA), 1978.

The detention was ordered to prevent activities prejudicial to the security of the UT, specifically allegations of providing logistic support to terrorists.

The petitioner challenged the order on grounds of procedural non-compliance, vague allegations, and failure to consider his representation.

The respondents contended that all statutory and constitutional safeguards were followed.

1. Whether the unexplained delay of two months by the State in deciding the petitioner’s representation violated his constitutional and statutory rights.

2. Whether the grounds of detention were sufficiently specific to allow the petitioner to make an effective representation.

The Court applied Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, which mandate that the grounds of detention must be communicated "as soon as may be" to afford the detenue the earliest opportunity to make a representation.

It relied on Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur (2021), establishing that the government must consider such representations with a "sense of immediacy".

applied the principle from Jahangirkhan Fazal Khan Pathan v. Police Commissioner and Mohd. Yousuf Rather v. State of J&K, which holds that vague grounds lacking material particulars (time, place, and identity) infringe upon the right to make an effective representation.

The Court found that the petitioner submitted his representation on 20.11.2024, which was received by the government on 26.11.2024, yet a decision was only communicated on 27.01.2025.

This unexplained delay of two months was deemed a "slackness" that violated the procedural guarantees fundamental to preventive detention laws.

Regarding the substance of the detention, the Court observed that the grounds failed to mention the identity of the terrorists, the specific locations, or the timeline of the alleged logistic support.

Because the allegations were cryptic and lacked factual depth, the Court reasoned that the petitioner was effectively prevented from mounting a proper legal challenge, thereby rendering the detention order subjective and legally unsustainable.

The Court allowed the petition, quashed detention order No. 27/DMA/PSA/DET/2024, and directed the immediate release of the petitioner from custody, provided he is not required in any other case.