Preventive detention invalidated for mismatch between detention order and grounds, defeating effective constitutional representation.

A material mismatch between the reason stated in a preventive detention order and the basis recorded in the grounds of detention can vitiate the subjective satisfaction for non-application of mind. Where the order referred to preventing abetting smuggling, but the supplied grounds referred to preventing smuggling itself, the inconsistency was treated as distinct and prejudicial. Because the detenu was not clearly informed of the true basis of detention, the discrepancy also impaired the right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. On that reasoning, the detention was held unsustainable and quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention order was vitiated by non-application of mind because it stated that detention was to prevent abetting smuggling of goods, while the grounds recorded that detention was to prevent smuggling of goods. (ii) Whether such variance prejudiced the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the detention order was vitiated by non-application of mind because it stated that detention was to prevent abetting smuggling of goods, while the grounds recorded that detention was to prevent smuggling of goods.

Analysis: The two expressions relate to distinct prejudicial activities under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974. A detention order founded on a satisfaction to prevent abetment of smuggling cannot be equated with one founded on a satisfaction to prevent smuggling itself. Since the grounds supplied to the detenu did not disclose any material supporting the specific basis stated in the detention order, the recorded subjective satisfaction lacked congruence with the grounds furnished.

Conclusion: The detention order was vitiated by non-application of mind.

Issue (ii): Whether such variance prejudiced the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: A detenu must know with certainty the real basis of detention so that he can effectively challenge it. Where the order and the grounds disclose different reasons, the detenu is left uncertain as to what must be met in representation. Such inconsistency necessarily misleads and confuses the detenu and impairs the constitutional safeguard of effective representation.

Conclusion: The variance prejudiced the detenu and infringed Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was unsustainable and was quashed, resulting in the detenu's release.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, a material variance between the reason stated in the detention order and the basis recorded in the grounds of detention vitiates the subjective satisfaction for non-application of mind and also infringes the detenu's right to effective representation.

---