Vagueness of grounds and failure to provide specific details of alleged activities invalidate preventive detention under the Public Safety Act.

The petitioner, a 23-year-old resident of Budgam, was detained under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), 1978, pursuant to Detention Order No. DMB/PSA/11 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Budgam.

The grounds of detention alleged that the petitioner was an "Over Ground Worker" (OGW) for terrorist outfits TRF/LeT and was involved in two FIRs from 2020 under the ULA(P) Act.

The petitioner was lodged in District Jail, Jammu.

The petitioner challenged the detention, asserting that the grounds were vague, vital documents like the police dossier were not supplied, and he was not provided with translated copies of the material in a language he understood, thereby violating his right to make an effective representation.

Section 13 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, which mandates communicating grounds of detention in a language understandable to the detenue to afford the earliest opportunity for representation.

Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to be informed of grounds and to make a representation.

The landmark precedent State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya (1951), which established that "vague" grounds are those incapable of being understood with sufficient certainty, rendering the right to representation "illusory".

Jahangir Khan Fazal Khan Pathan v. Police Commissioner (1989) to emphasize that detention orders based on general allegations without specific particulars (dates, places, or persons involved) are bad in law.

The Court found that while the respondents alleged the detenue was an OGW facilitating anti-national grids, the grounds of detention were mere "conclusions" drawn by the detaining authority without specific supporting facts.

The Court noted that there was not a "single specific incident" mentioned to suggest the petitioner's actual involvement in subversive activities during the relevant period.

This lack of detail meant the petitioner could only offer a "general denial," which fails the constitutional standard of an "effective and meaningful representation".

The Court observed that the detaining authority failed to provide translated copies or a script the detenue could read, which is a statutory requirement under Section 13 of the PSA to ensure "effective knowledge" of the grounds.

The Court concluded that the detention was based on stale or general allegations without proximity to the apprehension, reflecting non-application of mind.

The Court allowed the petition and quashed Detention Order No. DMB/PSA/11 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025. It directed the immediate release of Nisar Ahmad Bhagat from custody, provided he is not required in any other case, and ordered the return of the detention record to the respondents.