Preventive detention communication rules: recorded reasons for delayed service need not be separately supplied if grounds are timely furnished.

Under the preventive detention law, the detaining authority must communicate the grounds of detention as soon as may be, ordinarily within five days and, for exceptional circumstances recorded in writing, within ten days. Article 22(5) is satisfied if the detenu receives the grounds and supporting material in time to make an effective representation. The Court held that the statute did not require the exceptional circumstances or recorded reasons for delay to be separately communicated with the grounds, and their validity could be examined by the Government, Advisory Board, or Court. On the facts, the recorded administrative difficulties justified communication within the outer limit, so the detention orders were not vitiated.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-communication to the detenu of the exceptional circumstances and reasons recorded for furnishing the grounds of detention beyond five days but within ten days under the preventive detention law vitiated the detention order.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the detaining authority to communicate the grounds of detention as soon as may be, ordinarily within five days and, in exceptional circumstances recorded in writing, within ten days. The constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) was satisfied by timely communication of the grounds and supporting material so as to enable an effective representation. The Court held that the Act did not require the exceptional circumstances or the recorded reasons for delay to be separately communicated to the detenu along with the grounds. What mattered was whether the delay was genuinely exceptional and properly recorded, which could be examined by the Government, Advisory Board, or Court. On the facts, the recorded administrative difficulties justified the delay within the statutory outer limit.

Conclusion: The omission to communicate the exceptional circumstances and recorded reasons along with the grounds of detention did not by itself violate Article 22(5) or invalidate the detention order; the contrary view was overruled.

Final Conclusion: The detention orders were not vitiated on the ground of non-communication of the recorded exceptional circumstances, and the appeals succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 8(1) of the National Security Act, 1980, the detaining authority must communicate the grounds of detention within the prescribed time, but the recorded reasons for any exceptional delay need not be separately supplied to the detenu unless the legality of the delay is otherwise shown to be unsustainable.

---