Preventive detention under COFEPOSA turns on subjective satisfaction, effective representation, and severable grounds supporting the order.

Preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act depends on the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction based on relevant material, and continuous consideration of voluminous records does not by itself show non-application of mind. Mere incorporation of some language from the sponsoring authority's proposal is not fatal where the record reflects independent scrutiny. The right under Article 22(5) requires supply of relied upon material sufficient for an effective representation, but not every referred document or untranslated material must be furnished unless prejudice is shown. Section 5A preserves detention where grounds are severable, so defect in some material does not invalidate the order if independent grounds still support detention.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention order under the COFEPOSA Act was vitiated by alleged non-application of mind arising from consideration of voluminous material over a short period and by incorporation of portions of the sponsoring authority's proposal; (ii) Whether non-supply of English translations of Arabic documents and alleged non-placement of certain documents before the detaining authority infringed the detenu's right to make an effective representation; (iii) Whether the Screening Committee's prior view and the statutory rule of severability under section 5A saved the detention order notwithstanding any infirmity in some materials.

Issue (i): Whether the detention order under the COFEPOSA Act was vitiated by alleged non-application of mind arising from consideration of voluminous material over a short period and by incorporation of portions of the sponsoring authority's proposal?

Analysis: Preventive detention rests on subjective satisfaction formed on relevant material, and the Court emphasised that there is no rigid rule requiring a single-point or one-day consideration of all documents. Continuous consideration, including familiarisation with materials already examined in connected representations, was held to be legally permissible. The Court also held that mere use of some language from the sponsoring authority's proposal did not show absence of independent application of mind when the record showed active scrutiny and corrections by the detaining authority.

Conclusion: The challenge on non-application of mind failed and the detention order was not vitiated on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether non-supply of English translations of Arabic documents and alleged non-placement of certain documents before the detaining authority infringed the detenu's right to make an effective representation?

Analysis: The right under Article 22(5) requires supply of relied upon material sufficient to enable an effective representation, but not every casually referred-to document. The Court found that the Arabic documents were not shown to be vital to the detention basis and no prejudice was established. It further held that the material complained of as withheld was either not relied upon, already supplied in substance, or not shown to be of such significance that its absence would vitiate the subjective satisfaction. The Court also reiterated that it does not sit in appeal over the adequacy of material once relevant material exists to support preventive detention.

Conclusion: There was no infringement of the detenu's right to effective representation and no vitiation of the detention order on this ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the Screening Committee's prior view and the statutory rule of severability under section 5A saved the detention order notwithstanding any infirmity in some materials?

Analysis: The Court held that the Screening Committee's deferral or intermediate view did not bind the detaining authority, who was entitled to reach an independent subjective satisfaction on the later and complete material. It further held that section 5A makes detention grounds severable, so even if one ground or some supporting material were invalid, the order would survive on the remaining grounds so long as they independently supported detention. On the facts, the major basis of detention remained intact.

Conclusion: The detention order was sustained by the independent material and by section 5A, and the challenge based on the Screening Committee and alleged defective material failed.

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention was upheld on all substantial challenges, and the writ petition was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, the Court will sustain the detention if the detaining authority has applied its mind to relevant material and reached subjective satisfaction on independent grounds, while defects in some materials do not invalidate the order where the statute makes the grounds severable and no prejudice to the right of effective representation is shown.

---