Vague and nonspecific detention grounds violate Article 22(5) by preventing effective representation.

The petitioner challenged detention order No. 04-DMK/PSA of 2025 dated 29 April 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Kupwara, under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, placing him under preventive detention to prevent activities prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

He alleged that the detention was based on stale, vague and insufficient grounds, that the material relied upon had not been supplied in full, and that his representation had not been properly considered or its outcome communicated.

The respondents maintained that all statutory and constitutional safeguards had been complied with, and that the detention order, grounds and supporting material had been supplied to and explained to the detenue.

During hearing, the petitioner principally argued that the grounds of detention were vague and lacked material particulars, preventing an effective representation.

Whether the grounds of detention, alleging that the petitioner was an overground worker of Lashkar-e-Taiba and had engaged in subversive activities, were vague and lacking in material particulars so as to violate the petitioner’s right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

Whether the vagueness of the grounds of detention vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and rendered the detention order unlawful.

The Court applied Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which requires that the grounds of preventive detention be communicated with sufficient clarity and particularity to enable the detenue to make an effective representation.

The Court also relied on the constitutional guarantees of life and personal liberty under Article 21 and non-arbitrariness under Article 14, holding that vague and non-specific grounds unlawfully curtail liberty, prevent a meaningful rebuttal, and render the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction arbitrary.

The Court followed the Division Bench decision in Imran Rashid Rather v. UT of J&K, 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 351, which held that vague grounds undermine the legality of preventive detention and may indicate a casual or unsupported exercise of executive power.

The judgment also referred to State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, and Pooja Batra v. Union of India regarding arbitrariness and lack of bona fides in executive actions affecting personal liberty.

The grounds alleged that the petitioner was an overground worker of Lashkar-e-Taiba who aided and abetted terrorist activities and had again engaged in subversive activities, but they did not identify the places involved, the alleged terrorists, the nature of the assistance, or the relevant time periods.

The Court held that these omissions deprived the allegations of the particulars necessary for the petitioner to understand the precise case against him and submit an effective representation.

Since Article 22(5) requires specific and intelligible grounds, the vagueness struck at the foundation of the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction and rendered the detention order constitutionally invalid.

The petition was allowed, detention order No. 04-DMK/PSA of 2025 dated 29 April 2025 was quashed, and the respondents were directed to release the petitioner forthwith, unless he was required in connection with any other case.

The detention record was directed to be returned to the respondents’ counsel.