Preventive detention and disclosure of grounds: an isolated act was insufficient, and an undisclosed material ground vitiated detention.

Preventive detention requires a reasonable prognosis of future prejudicial conduct based on past behaviour and surrounding circumstances; a single isolated act will not suffice unless its nature and context reasonably indicate likely repetition. On the facts discussed, one wagon-breaking incident did not justify the necessary satisfaction for detention. The detention was also vitiated because the authority relied on an additional, undisclosed ground that the detenu was a notorious and systematic wagon breaker engaged in theft from railway wagons; non-communication of that material ground denied an effective opportunity to make a representation and breached the constitutional safeguard applicable to preventive detention.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a single isolated act of wagon breaking, by itself, could reasonably sustain the preventive detention order. (ii) Whether reliance on an additional undisclosed ground, not communicated to the detenu, vitiated the detention order.

Issue (i): Whether a single isolated act of wagon breaking, by itself, could reasonably sustain the preventive detention order.

Analysis: Preventive detention rests on a reasonable prognosis of future conduct based on past behaviour and surrounding circumstances. A solitary act may, in an appropriate case, justify detention if its nature and context reasonably indicate a likelihood of repetition. On the facts found, there was nothing to show that wagon breaking had become so rampant or that the isolated act attributed to the detenu could rationally support an inference that he would probably continue such conduct. The material on record did not justify the requisite satisfaction.

Conclusion: The solitary act of wagon breaking was insufficient to sustain the detention order.

Issue (ii): Whether reliance on an additional undisclosed ground, not communicated to the detenu, vitiated the detention order.

Analysis: The detaining authority's affidavit showed that the order was not founded merely on the communicated incident, but also on the further allegation that the detenu was a notorious and systematic wagon breaker engaged in theft from railway wagons. That material ground was not communicated to the detenu, depriving him of an effective opportunity to make a representation. This breached the statutory requirement of communication of grounds and the constitutional safeguard of a meaningful representation against preventive detention.

Conclusion: The non-communication of the real and additional ground vitiated the detention order.

Final Conclusion: The detention was held unlawful and the writ petition succeeded, resulting in release of the detenu.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention cannot rest on a bare, isolated act unless the surrounding circumstances reasonably support a prognosis of future prejudicial conduct, and any material ground actually relied upon must be communicated to the detenu to preserve the right to make an effective representation.

---