Preventive detention grounds must be clear and intelligible, but need not include every subsidiary detail if effective representation remains possible.

In preventive detention matters, the detenu must receive the basic facts forming the grounds of detention in a clear and intelligible form, but not every subsidiary or evidentiary detail. On the facts stated, the detention order and grounds were held to have been duly communicated through the official record and jail authorities, and the later affidavit cured any earlier lack of clarity. The grounds were also found not to be vague because they conveyed the pith and substance of the allegations and enabled an effective representation, while omitted particulars such as dates and other details were treated as non-essential or justifiably withheld in public interest. The detention order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the grounds of detention were duly communicated to the detenu; (ii) Whether the grounds of detention were vague for want of essential particulars.

Issue (i): Whether the grounds of detention were duly communicated to the detenu?

Analysis: The detention order was shown to have been served on the detenu when he was not in police or jail custody. The official records and the supporting affidavit established service of the detention order and subsequent service of the grounds through the jail authorities. The Court accepted that the communication dated 27 April 1973 and the endorsements on the original records corroborated the State's version. The objection based on the form of the affidavits was rejected because the later affidavit clarified what had been left indistinct in the earlier one.

Conclusion: The grounds of detention were duly communicated to the detenu.

Issue (ii): Whether the grounds of detention were vague for want of essential particulars?

Analysis: The Court held that the grounds, read as a whole, conveyed the substance of the primary facts necessary to enable a representation. The abbreviation used in the grounds was intelligible in context, and the omission of dates, monetary details, and other particulars concerned subsidiary facts rather than basic facts. The statute required communication of the pith and substance of the grounds, not every evidentiary detail, and the withheld particulars were also treated as justifiably withheld in public interest.

Conclusion: The grounds of detention were not vague and did not impair the detenu's right to make an effective representation.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was upheld because the statutory requirements of communication and intelligible disclosure of grounds were satisfied, and no fatal defect in the detention process was established.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, the detenu must be supplied with the basic facts constituting the grounds of detention in a clear and intelligible form, but disclosure of subsidiary details or evidentiary particulars is not required if the essential material is conveyed and any withheld particulars are not necessary for an effective representation.

---