Case: Suna Ullah Butt Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir &amp; Others

1. This is a petition through Jail under Article 32 of the Constitution for issuing a writ of habeas corpus by Suna Ullah Butt, who has been ordered by the District Magistrate Poonch to be detained under Section 3(2) read with Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to preventing him "from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State."2. The order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate on October 24, 1971. In pursuance of the detention order, the petitioner was taken into custody the same day and was explained the substance of the detention order. The petitioner was thereafter kept in Central Jail Jammu. The grounds of detention were communicated to the petitioner on November 1, 1971 in accordance with Section 8 of the Act, which requires that such grounds should be communicated to the detenu as soon as possible but not later than 10 days from the date of detention. The order of detention was approved by the Chief Minister, who was in charge of the Home Department, on November 12, 1971. The case of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board on December 16, 1971. The Board communicated its opinion on February 19, 1972 that the detention of the petitioner was justified. An order confirming the detention order was thereafter made by the State Government on March 3, 1972 under section 12 of the ActThe grounds of detention gave the following particulars :"You, Suna Ullah s/o Khawaja Mahad Joo r/o Sri Chohana, P/S Surankot, District Poonch, were recruited as a source by Cap. Kiani and Subedar Shah of Pak intelligence in 1968, when you had crossed over to POK and settled at Palandri2. Working as source of the above mentioned officers, you introduced Abdul Ghani s/o Asda Rather resident of your own village, Rafic s/o Goffar Joo r/o Poonch and Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din s/o Karim Joo r/o Seri Chohana with Pak Intelligence, who were recruited as sources by them. These sources supplied vital Indian Army informations to Pak Intelligence3. You at the instance of above mentioned officer of Pak Intelligence crossed over to our side in September 1971 with the purpose of further supplying Indian Army informations to Pak Intelligence. In view of the above your activities were found extremely prejudicial to the security of the State, hence you were detained under the J. & K. Preventive Detention Act, so that you are prevented from indulging in such nefarious activitiesThe petition has been resisted by the State of Jammu & Kashmir and other respondents, and the affidavit of Shri Mohammad Amin, Additional Secretary to the Government of Jammu & Kashmir, Home Department, has been filed in opposition to the petition.

Reasoning:
5. Apart from the above, we are of the opinion that it is not always practicable and feasible for the State Government at the time of confirming the detention order to specify the period of detention. The continued detention of the detenu, subject to the maximum period prescribed by the Act, depends upon a variety of factors and the State Government would have to take into account all the circumstances including fresh developments and subsequent events in decidingwhether to keep the detenu in detention for the maximum period or to release him earlier.It has accordingly been provided in sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act that the State Government would have the power to revoke or modify the detention order at any time earlier than the expiry of two years from the date of detentionWe may also mention in the above context that in the case of Ujagar Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1952 SCR 756  = (AIR 1952 SC 350 ) this Court, while dealing with a case under the Preventive Detention Act, held that non-specification of any definite period in a detention order made under Section 3 of that Act was not a material omission as would render the order to be invalid6. So far as the grounds of detention are concerned, it is manifest that the activities of the petitioner mentioned therein are germane to the object for which detention can be ordered. Sub-section (1) of S. 3 of the Act provides inter alia that the Government may if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State it is necessary so to do make an order directing that such person be detained. The activities of the petitioner mentioned in the grounds of detention show that he was having contact with Pakistan Intelligence Officers and was assisting them in securing vital information relating to Indian Army. It is obvious that the above activities of the petitioner impinge upon the security of the State. No legal infirmity can consequently be found in the order for the detention of the petitioner which was made with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.