Preventive detention safeguards require full supply of relied-upon materials, prompt representation review, and written grounds in an understood language.

Constructive res judicata does not bar a later habeas corpus petition raising fresh grounds against preventive detention. The detention was unlawful because the detenu was not supplied all documents and materials relied on in forming the grounds, denying an effective opportunity to represent against detention. It was also vitiated because the Central Government did not dispose of the detenu's representation with expedition, contrary to Article 22(5). Service of the grounds only in English, without a written translation in a language understood by the detenu, likewise failed the constitutional requirement of effective communication.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a subsequent petition for habeas corpus on fresh grounds is barred by constructive res judicata; (ii) whether non-supply of all relied upon documents and materials vitiates the detention; (iii) whether failure to consider the detenu's representation by the Central Government with expedition infringes Article 22(5); and (iv) whether grounds of detention served only in English, without a written translation in a language understood by the detenu, satisfy the constitutional mandate.

Issue (i): whether a subsequent petition for habeas corpus on fresh grounds is barred by constructive res judicata.

Analysis: Constructive res judicata was treated as a rule of public policy applicable to civil proceedings, but not as a rule to curtail the liberty of a person challenging illegal preventive detention. A later petition raising grounds not urged earlier was held maintainable, particularly where the new grounds concerned the legality of continued detention and were not shown to have been available for effective adjudication in the earlier petition.

Conclusion: The subsequent habeas corpus petition was not barred by constructive res judicata and was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether non-supply of all relied upon documents and materials vitiates the detention.

Analysis: Article 22(5) and Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 require the detenu to be furnished, within the prescribed time, with the grounds of detention in their entirety together with the documents, statements, and materials relied upon in forming those grounds. The withheld materials were part of the basic facts that had influenced the detaining authority, and their non-supply deprived the detenu of an effective opportunity to make a representation.

Conclusion: Non-supply of the relied upon documents and materials rendered the detention illegal.

Issue (iii): whether failure to consider the detenu's representation by the Central Government with expedition infringes Article 22(5).

Analysis: The constitutional safeguard in Article 22(5) requires that any representation by a preventively detained person be dealt with promptly and with utmost expedition. The record disclosed no consideration or disposal of the representation forwarded to the Central Government, which amounted to breach of the constitutional mandate.

Conclusion: The unexplained non-disposal of the representation by the Central Government violated Article 22(5) and vitiated the detention.

Issue (iv): whether grounds of detention served only in English, without a written translation in a language understood by the detenu, satisfy the constitutional mandate.

Analysis: Communication of grounds under Article 22(5) means effective and full communication in writing in a language understood by the detenu. A mere oral explanation, without leaving a written version in an understood language, does not furnish the detenu with the sufficient and effective knowledge needed to make a purposeful representation.

Conclusion: Service of the grounds only in English, without a written translation understood by the detenu, did not satisfy Article 22(5).

Final Conclusion: The detention was held illegal on multiple constitutional and statutory grounds, and the detenu's release was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: Constructive res judicata does not bar a subsequent habeas corpus petition raising fresh grounds against illegal preventive detention, and Article 22(5) requires timely supply of all relied upon materials, effective written communication of the grounds in a language understood by the detenu, and expeditious consideration of any representation.

---