Preventive detention safeguards require timely supply of relied-upon materials and prompt consideration of representations, or detention fails.

In preventive detention matters, the grounds of detention are incomplete unless the relied-upon documents, statements and tape-recorded materials are supplied within the statutory period for communication of grounds; failure to do so breaches Article 22(5) and the COFEPOSA safeguard, and the continued detention becomes illegal. The Court also held that representations against detention must be considered with promptness; inordinate administrative delay, where inadequately explained, defeats the constitutional right to an early and effective representation and likewise vitiates the detention. On both grounds, the continued detention was invalid and release was ordered.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether copies of the documents, statements and tape-recorded materials relied upon in the grounds of detention had to be supplied to the detenu within the time required for communication of the grounds of detention. (ii) Whether unreasonable delay in considering the detenu's representations vitiated the continued detention.

Issue (i): Whether copies of the documents, statements and tape-recorded materials relied upon in the grounds of detention had to be supplied to the detenu within the time required for communication of the grounds of detention.

Analysis: Article 22(5) guarantees communication of the grounds of detention and the earliest opportunity to make a representation. Section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA Act fixes the outer limit for such communication. The grounds are not complete unless the relied-upon statements, documents and other materials forming part of the grounds are also furnished. Without those materials, the detenu cannot make an effective representation. Their supply after the statutory limit amounted to breach of the constitutional and statutory safeguards.

Conclusion: The non-supply of the relied-upon materials within time invalidated the continued detention and this issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether unreasonable delay in considering the detenu's representations vitiated the continued detention.

Analysis: The constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) requires the representation to be considered with promptness. The representations remained unattended for an inordinate period, and the explanation offered for the administrative delay was not accepted as satisfactory. Delay at each stage of circulation and decision-making defeated the requirement of early consideration of the detenu's challenge to detention.

Conclusion: The unreasonable delay in dealing with the representations vitiated the continued detention and this issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The continued detention was held illegal for breach of the safeguards governing preventive detention, and the detenu was directed to be released.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention cases, the grounds must be communicated in full together with the relied-upon materials within the statutory period, and any representation must be considered without unreasonable delay; breach of either safeguard renders the continued detention illegal.

---