Delay in supplying detention materials can vitiate preventive detention by denying an effective right of representation.

Unexplained delay in supplying the documents and statements forming the basis of a preventive detention order can deny the detenu a real and effective opportunity to make a representation. The Court noted that the material was furnished only after a substantial delay, after the detenu had already been required to represent, and that the earlier panchnamas did not cover the statements relied on in the detention grounds. Because the delay was not satisfactorily explained, the constitutional safeguard of effective representation was frustrated, and the detention was held illegal; the detention order was set aside and release directed forthwith.

---

---

Issues: Whether the unexplained delay in furnishing the documents and statements forming the basis of the detention order denied the detenu an effective opportunity to make a representation, thereby rendering the detention illegal.

Analysis: The documents relied upon for detention were supplied only after a substantial delay, and the detenu had already been required to make his representation before receiving them. The delay was not satisfactorily explained, and the material supplied earlier in the form of panchnamas did not cover the statements that formed an important part of the detention grounds. Since the detaining authority is bound to afford a real and effective opportunity to challenge detention, delay in supplying the basic material frustrates that constitutional safeguard.

Conclusion: The delay amounted to denial of an effective opportunity of representation, and the detention was illegal.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was set aside and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi: Unreasonable delay in supplying documents relied upon for preventive detention, when those documents are necessary for an effective representation, vitiates the detention as a denial of constitutional opportunity.

---