Vague grounds of detention and non-supply of relied-upon material violate constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5).

The petitioner, Mumtaz Ahmad Mir, was detained under Detention Order No. 13/DMB/PSA/2025 dated 07.05.2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Baramulla, under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978

The detention was justified by the authorities to curb activities prejudicial to the "security of the State"

The grounds for detention relied upon the petitioner's family ties to militants—specifically a cousin in PoK and a maternal uncle neutralized in an encounter—and his alleged role as a courier

The petitioner challenged the order, contending that the grounds were vague, the material relied upon by the detaining authority was not fully supplied, and his involvement in FIR No. 15/2021 was based on mere association rather than personal overt acts

1. Whether the grounds of detention were sufficiently specific to allow the detenue to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution

2. Whether the non-supply of all material documents relied upon by the detaining authority vitiates the detention order

3. Whether mere association or relationship with alleged militants, without specific prejudicial overt acts, constitutes a valid basis for preventive detention

Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that a detenue must be communicated the grounds of detention and afforded the earliest opportunity to represent against it

Chaju Ram v. State of J&K, establishing that vague allegations without particulars render detention illegal

Sophia Ghulam Mohammad Bham v. State of Maharashtra, which held that "all material" relied upon must be furnished to the detenue

Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, emphasizing that if ordinary penal laws are sufficient to deal with a situation, recourse to preventive detention is illegal

Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal, regarding the judicial review of subjective satisfaction based on irrelevant material

The Court found that the grounds of detention were based on "omnibus assertions" regarding the petitioner’s relatives rather than specific prejudicial acts committed by the petitioner himself

Since no specific dates, places, or nature of activities were provided, the Court determined the grounds were too vague for the petitioner to formulate a meaningful defense

Furthermore, the Court noted a procedural lapse: while the detention order and dossier were provided, other "allied documents" and material relied upon for subjective satisfaction were not supplied to the petitioner

Applying the principle from Thahira Haris v. Government of Karnataka, the Court reasoned that this non-supply suppressed the petitioner's constitutional right to make an effective representation

Finally, the Court observed that preventive detention is an exception to personal liberty under Article 21 and must be strictly construed; here, the authorities failed to show how the ordinary law (the pending FIR) was insufficient

Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and quashed Detention Order No. 13/DMB/PSA/2025. The respondents were directed to release the detenue from preventive custody forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case