Preventive detention and effective representation fail where relied-on documents are withheld from the detenu, making the detention invalid.

Preventive detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act was held unlawful where the detenu was not supplied the documents and material relied on for the detention order. Article 22(5) requires that the grounds of detention be communicated in a manner that permits an effective representation, and that obligation is not met unless the basic supporting documents are furnished with the grounds. Because the relied-upon material was omitted, service of the grounds was incomplete in law. The detention was therefore invalid and without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was vitiated because the grounds of detention were not accompanied by the documents forming the basis of the order, thereby denying the detenu the effective right of representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The detention was based on material and documents which were not supplied along with the grounds of detention. The constitutional mandate under Article 22(5) requires that the grounds be communicated in a manner that enables an effective representation, and this is not satisfied unless the basic documents relied upon for the detention order are also furnished. On that footing, the omission to supply the supporting material meant that there was, in law, no complete service of the grounds of detention. The detention was therefore rendered unlawful and could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The detention was held to be without jurisdiction and invalid.

---