Delay Of Over 3 Months In Considering Detenue's Representation Breaches Statutory Requirements, Renders Detention Invalid: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that a delay of more than three months in considering a detenue's representation breaches statutory requirements under Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act which renders detention invalid.

The court said that it was admitted by the detaining authorities that the representation filed by the detainee was rejected after 3 months time which infringed the valuable right which is available to a detenue in terms of provisions contained under PSA.

Justice Sanjay Dhar also said that there was nothing on record suggesting that the order rejecting the representation was even conveyed to the detenu. It was noted that the communication through which the representation was rejected was forwarded from Deputy Secretary to Government, Home Department, to the District Magistrate, Anantnag but the same was not conveyed to the petitioner.

The court relied on Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs. District Magistrate, Jabalpur and others”(2021) wherein court held that failure of the government to communicate rejection of detenue's representation in a time bound manner is sufficient to vitiate the detention order.

The court said that perusal of the Execution Report also showed that grounds of detention were communicated to petitioner by ASI however, it noted, that it was incumbent on the respondents to place on record a duly sworn affidavit of the said official, but no such affidavit is available in the detention record.

The court therefore quashed the detention order on the grounds of procedural lapses, constitutional violations, and delay in considering the detenue's representation.

BACKGROUND:

The District Magistrate, Anantnag, issued detention order against the petitioner under the J&K Public Safety Act (PSA), 1978. The petitioner was placed under preventive detention, with authorities claiming that he was a threat to the security of the State/UT. The petitioner challenged the detention order, contending that: The grounds of detention were vague and fabricated.

He claimed that he was not provided a translated version of the grounds of detention, making it impossible for him to file an effective representation. His representation against the detention was not considered by the authorities.

The detaining authorities defended the detention, arguing that: The petitioner was involved in activities prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory. The detention order was validly issued and all procedural safeguards were followed. The petitioner was informed of his right to challenge the detention, and the order was explained to him by a police officer.

APPEARANCE

Asif Wani, Advocate. FOR Petitioners

Syed Musaib, Advocate. FOR Respondents

Case-Title:- ROUF AHMAD DAR vs UT OF J&K & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 117

Click Here To Read/Download Order