ANAYATULLAH LONE Vs. STATE
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) PETITIONER , the father of detenu Anayatullah, impugns the detention order no. Det/PSA/06/239 dated 03.03.2006 purporting to have been passed
by District Magistrate, Anantnag against the detenue, with prayer for its
(2.) GROUNDS pleaded are that the impugned order of detention does not show as to on what materials the detaining authority assumed
subjective satisfaction regarding necessity of passing the detention
order, and that the grounds of detention even though vague and irrelevant
were not furnished to the detenu, nor was lie informed of his right to
make a representation against his detention.
In counter affidavit, respondent no.2 has stated that activities of the detenue were highly prejudicial to the security of State and his detention was necessary to prevent him from indulging in such acts, which was further approved by the Government and the State Advisory Board constituted u/s 14 of P.S. Act., and grounds thereof were explained to the detenue in Urdu and 'Kashmiri language understood by him. During course of submissions the appearing counsels have reiterated the contents of their pleadings.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. From perusal of pleadings and contentions raised at bar the main ground of
attack projected by the petitioner against the detention in question is,
that the grounds of detention were not duly communicated to the detenu
which prevented him from making an effective representation against his
detention and thereby he was deprived of an important constitutional
right. On examination it percolates that memo of the grounds of detention
appended with the petition is written in English which as per counter
affidavit has been explained to the detenu in Urdu and Kashmir language.
That however, appears to be quite bald an assertion because of not being
substantiated with any supporting material, particularly anything on
behalf of the person or the official who is supposed to have translated
the grounds to the detenu. According to well settled law (AIR 1980 S.C
1751) in such cases the position is, that the officer who translates the grounds of detention to the detenu in the language understood by him
should at least put in an affidavit that he did so or there should be a
certificate of satisfaction on part of the detaining authority that the
grounds of detention were so communicated to the detenu. Nothing of the
sort is forth coming from the records particularly because the detention
file pertaining to present detenu has not been furnished by the
In addition to that is another circumstance, perhaps not duly noticed by the respondent -State. Records, on the file contain a duly
issued and un -rebutted medical certificate to the effect that the detenu
is a cancer patient in third stage of the disease. This fact should
ordinarily have dissuaded the respondent State from passing the detention
order in question, for the simple reason that with his certified medical
status, the detenu could perhaps not be categorized as a threat to
security of the State. However for what has been said in the preceding
paras, the detention order in question appears to be bad otherwise also.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.