Detention safeguards require consideration of representations and supply of relied-upon material under Article 22(5).

A communication seeking release of a detenu, supported by reasons and a request for documents, is a representation under Article 22(5) and must be considered at the earliest opportunity; failure to do so vitiates detention. The "grounds" of detention must include not only the inferential conclusions but also the factual material relied upon, so that the detenu can make an effective representation. Where the grounds refer to documents, statements or other materials, copies of those relied-upon materials must be supplied within the prescribed time. Non-supply of such material defeats the constitutional safeguard and renders the detention illegal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a communication seeking release of the detenu, coupled with reasons for such release and a request for documents, constitutes a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India requiring consideration by the detaining authority. (ii) Whether the grounds of detention under Article 22(5) and Section 3(3) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 must include and be supported by copies of the documents, statements and materials relied upon by the detaining authority.

Issue (i): Whether a communication seeking release of the detenu, coupled with reasons for such release and a request for documents, constitutes a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India requiring consideration by the detaining authority.

Analysis: A representation under Article 22(5) need not be in any prescribed form. If a communication contains a demand for release and states a ground or reason for that demand, it must be treated as a representation. A further request for copies of documents, made to enable an additional representation, does not alter its essential character. The constitutional obligation to afford the earliest opportunity of making a representation carries with it the duty to consider that representation at the earliest opportunity.

Conclusion: The communication dated 27 July 1980 was a representation and, since it was not considered, the detention was vitiated on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the grounds of detention under Article 22(5) and Section 3(3) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 must include and be supported by copies of the documents, statements and materials relied upon by the detaining authority.

Analysis: The expression "grounds" in Article 22(5) means not merely the inferential conclusions but also the factual material which formed the basis of those conclusions. The detenu can make an effective representation only if informed of all the material taken into account against him. The grounds must therefore be self-sufficient and self-explanatory, and where they refer to documents, statements or other materials, copies of those materials must be supplied as part of the grounds within the prescribed time. Failure to do so defeats the constitutional safeguard and renders continued detention illegal.

Conclusion: Copies of the documents and materials relied upon had to be furnished as part of the grounds, and the failure to do so invalidated the detention.

Final Conclusion: The detention orders could not survive judicial scrutiny because both the representation was not considered and the statutory and constitutional obligation to supply the relied-upon material was not satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Article 22(5), a detenu's communication demanding release and stating a reason for it is a representation that must be considered, and the "grounds" of detention must contain the factual material relied upon, including the documents and statements referred to in those grounds, so as to enable an effective representation.

---