Preventive detention requires relevant grounds and independent consideration of representation; vague or irrelevant grounds invalidate detention.

Preventive detention grounds must bear direct relevance to public order and be clear enough to enable an effective representation; grounds confined to jail discipline, minor disturbances, or mere law-and-order concerns are defective. Here, several relied-upon grounds were either vague or irrelevant, so they could not sustain the detention. The Government must also independently and promptly consider the detenue's representation, separate from the Advisory Board process; forwarding the representation to the Board did not satisfy that duty. Because both the grounds and the statutory safeguard were defective, the detention could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the detention order was vitiated because some of the grounds supplied were vague or irrelevant to the maintenance of public order; (ii) whether failure of the Government to independently consider the detenues' representation rendered the detention illegal.

Issue (i): whether the detention order was vitiated because some of the grounds supplied were vague or irrelevant to the maintenance of public order.

Analysis: Grounds of preventive detention must have direct relevance to the statutory purpose, namely prevention of conduct prejudicial to public order, and they must be sufficiently clear to enable an effective representation. Grounds relating only to jail discipline, minor disturbances, or conduct amounting at most to law and order were held to be outside the scope of public order. Grounds that were vague, uncertain, or incapable of effective rebuttal were also treated as defective. Since several of the relied-upon grounds were found either irrelevant or vague, they could not sustain the order.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid on this ground.

Issue (ii): whether failure of the Government to independently consider the detenues' representation rendered the detention illegal.

Analysis: The right to make a representation requires prompt and independent consideration by the appropriate Government, distinct from the Advisory Board process. Receipt of the representation by the Government and its onward transmission to the Advisory Board did not discharge that obligation. As the Government did not consider the representation either promptly or before confirmation of detention, a mandatory safeguard under the statute was breached.

Conclusion: The detention order was illegal on this ground as well.

Final Conclusion: The detention could not be sustained because it rested on defective grounds and the statutory safeguard of independent consideration of representation was not observed.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, grounds must be relevant to public order and sufficiently definite to permit an effective representation, and the detaining authority must independently and promptly consider the detenue's representation apart from the Advisory Board process.

---