State Legal Aid Committee, J&K v. State Of J&K And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The writ petition challenged a preventive detention order issued under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The detenu alleged non-compliance with Section 13 of the Act, which obliges the detaining authority to disclose and communicate the grounds of detention. The State filed an affidavit asserting that the grounds and warrants were served, read over, and explained to the detenu, and that he was told of his right to make a representation but refused to accept the documents or sign them. No supporting material—such as an affidavit from the serving official or an endorsed note of refusal—was produced. During the hearing, the State sought additional time to place such material on record, but the court noted that the detention order was due to expire on 6-11-2004 and proceeded to decide the petition.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the State had complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978—namely, providing the detenu with the grounds of detention and informing him of his right to make a representation.

Whether the court should grant the State additional time to furnish evidence of compliance before the expiry of the detention order.

Arguments of the Parties

State's Arguments

The contents of the detention warrants and the grounds of detention were served on, read over, and explained to the detenu.

The detenu was informed of his right to make a representation but refused to accept the documents and refused to sign any acknowledgments.

An extension of time should be granted to place supporting material on record.

Even if the present order is quashed, the Act does not bar the issuance of a fresh detention order.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court held that the affidavit submitted by the State was insufficient to demonstrate compliance with Section 13 of the Act. Without an affidavit from the official who allegedly tried to serve the documents—or any endorsed record of the detenu’s refusal—the State failed to provide “definite material” showing that the grounds of detention were effectively communicated. Because compliance with Section 13 is a statutory prerequisite for a valid detention, the absence of such proof was fatal to the order. The court declined the State’s request for additional time, noting that the detention order would lapse on 6-11-2004, making any further delay purposeless. The court expressly refrained from commenting on the possibility of a future detention order, limiting its decision to the validity of the order under challenge.

Holding and Implications

The detention order was quashed and the writ petition was disposed of.

Immediate Effect: The detenu is released from custody pursuant to the impugned order, which stands invalidated for non-compliance with Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.

Broader Implications: The judgment reiterates the strict procedural safeguards required under preventive-detention statutes. Although no new precedent was set, the decision underscores that failure to prove timely and adequate communication of detention grounds will render such orders vulnerable to judicial invalidation. The court left open the possibility of the State issuing a fresh detention order, provided it fully complies with statutory requirements.

State Legal Aid Committee, J&K v. State Of J&K And Others

Arijit Pasayat, J.— Though several questions have been raised in this petition, it is not necessary to deal with them in detail as we find that there is no definite material to show that the requirements of Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (in short “the Act”) requiring the grounds of order of detention to be disclosed/communicated to the person affected by the order have been complied with. Though, in the affidavit filed by the State, it has been stated that the contents of the warrants and grounds of detention were served, read over and explained to the detenu and he was informed about his right to make a representation against the detention, if he so desired, there is no material placed on record to substantiate this stand. It is stated in the affidavit that the detenu refused to receive copy of the detention order and also refused to put his signatures on the documents. The least the State could have done is to file an affidavit of the person who wanted to serve the relevant documents and an endorsement to the effect that there was refusal. Even the name of the official has not been indicated in the affidavit. That would have been sufficient to comply with the requirements of Section 13 of the Act.

2. Though a prayer for extension of time is made to file the details, we find that the currency of the detention order is expiring on 6-11-2004. Therefore, we do not accept the prayer for extension of time. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no bar on a fresh order of detention being passed. We do not express any opinion in this regard. In the present proceedings, the order of detention of the detenu is quashed. This, however, shall not stand in the way of such action being taken by the State and/or any authority in accordance with law.

3. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 8 of 2004, decided on November 5, 2004

State Legal Aid Committee, J&K v. State Of J&K And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

State's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

State Legal Aid Committee, J&K v. State Of J&K And Others

Comments