Preventive detention review turns on explained delay, relied-upon documents, and relevant material supporting subjective satisfaction.

In preventive detention matters, unexplained delay in disposing of a detenu's representation will vitiate the order only if the delay is inordinate and not accounted for; here, the administrative processing was explained and the delay was not unreasonable. Only documents actually relied upon to form the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction must be supplied; the complained-of documents were not shown to have been relied on, so non-supply did not invalidate detention. Judicial review remains limited to whether the detention was based on relevant material, and the material here was sufficient to support preventive detention in public interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether there was unreasonable delay in disposal of the detenu's representation to the Central Government; (ii) whether non-supply of certain documents vitiated the detention order; and (iii) whether the detaining authority lacked compelling reason to order preventive detention.

Issue (i): whether there was unreasonable delay in disposal of the detenu's representation to the Central Government.

Analysis: The representation was processed through the Central Government in a short sequence of administrative steps, including receipt, forwarding for comments, receipt of comments, and final consideration. The interval between receipt of the sponsoring authority's comments and the rejection order was only one day. The time taken at the earlier processing stages was also explained and could not be treated as inordinate or unexplained delay.

Conclusion: The delay was not unreasonable, and this ground failed.

Issue (ii): whether non-supply of certain documents vitiated the detention order.

Analysis: Only documents relied upon by the detaining authority are required to be furnished. The bail order had been supplied, and the earlier bail proceedings and the customs counter-affidavit were not shown to have formed part of the material actually relied upon for reaching the subjective satisfaction. A document not relied on for detention does not have to be furnished merely because it is mentioned in the background facts.

Conclusion: The non-supply of the complained-of documents did not vitiate the detention order.

Issue (iii): whether the detaining authority lacked compelling reason to order preventive detention.

Analysis: The material showed that the detenu had travelled abroad, was found carrying electronic goods of substantial value, and the detaining authority assessed the facts as warranting preventive detention in public interest. Judicial review in such matters is limited to examining whether the satisfaction was reached on relevant material, not to substituting the Court's own view. No absence of compelling reason was shown.

Conclusion: The detention order was supported by sufficient material and this ground failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected, and the preventive detention order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, only unexplained delay or non-supply of documents actually relied upon to reach subjective satisfaction can invalidate the order, and the Court will not substitute its own assessment for that of the detaining authority where relevant material supports the detention.

---