Preventive detention and witness statements: contents must be disclosed unless their disclosure is consciously found contrary to public interest.

In preventive detention matters, non-disclosure is permissible only when the detaining authority consciously concludes that disclosure of the relevant material would be against public interest. Where detention is based on witness statements, withholding only the witnesses' names and addresses does not justify suppressing the contents of those statements unless their disclosure itself has been considered objectionable on public interest grounds. As the statements were relied upon for detention and were not supplied, the detenu was deprived of material needed for an effective representation under Article 22(5). The detention order was therefore vitiated and quashed, and release was directed if the detenu was not otherwise required.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-supply of the contents of witness statements relied upon for detention, where only the names and addresses of the witnesses were withheld under the claimed privilege, violated the detenu's right to make an effective representation under the preventive detention law and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The statutory and constitutional safeguard permits non-disclosure only when the detaining authority consciously determines that disclosure of the relevant facts would be against the public interest. In the present case, the authority decided only to withhold the identities of the witnesses, but did not consider the disclosure of the contents of their statements to be against public interest. Since the statements were relied upon in support of detention, their non-supply deprived the detenu of the material necessary to make an effective representation.

Conclusion: The detention order was vitiated for breach of the statutory and constitutional safeguard, and the challenge succeeded in favour of the detenu.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was quashed and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Ratio Decidendi: Where detention is founded on witness statements, mere withholding of witness identities does not justify withholding the contents of those statements unless the authority has consciously concluded that disclosure of those contents would be against public interest; otherwise the detenu's right to effective representation is infringed.

---