Preventive detention fairness requires prompt supply of relied-upon materials, and delay can make continued detention illegal.

Article 22(5) requires the detaining authority to communicate the grounds of preventive detention as soon as may be and to afford the detenu the earliest effective opportunity to make a representation. Where the grounds are founded on documents, statements or writings, those materials form part of the grounds and must be supplied without undue delay. The authority's failure to act promptly on the request, coupled with the prolonged non-supply of the relied-upon materials, breached the constitutional obligation and deprived the detenu of an effective representation. The continued detention was therefore held illegal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the continued detention was invalid because copies of the documents, statements and writings relied upon in the grounds of detention were not furnished with reasonable expedition so as to deny the detenu an effective representation.

Analysis: Article 22(5) requires the detaining authority to communicate the grounds of detention as soon as may be and to afford the earliest opportunity of making a representation. Where the grounds rely on documents, statements or other materials, those materials form part of the grounds and must be supplied without undue delay so that the representation can be effectively made. The detaining authority failed to act promptly on the request, the matter was passed between offices, and the documents remained unsupplied for an unreasonable period. The constitutional obligation under preventive detention law was therefore not satisfactorily discharged.

Conclusion: The delay in furnishing the relied-upon materials violated Article 22(5) and rendered the continued detention illegal.

---