Preventive detention: explained delay, independent application of mind, and prompt translation can sustain the detention order.

Preventive detention may survive a delay challenge where the proposal is continuously processed, the record is voluminous, and the time taken is satisfactorily explained by scrutiny at different stages; the detention was treated as not stale. Independent consideration of the proposal, later materials, and grounds by the detaining authority negates a plea of mechanical adoption of a predecessor's draft; the detention was not vitiated on that basis. Article 22(5) is not breached where the detenu is shown to understand English and translated copies are supplied promptly on request; service of English documents was therefore treated as sufficient.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether delay in passing the preventive detention order snapped the live link between the alleged prejudicial activity and the detention order; (ii) Whether the detention order was vitiated by non-application of mind or mechanical adoption of a predecessor's draft; and (iii) Whether service of English documents without immediate translation violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether delay in passing the preventive detention order snapped the live link between the alleged prejudicial activity and the detention order.

Analysis: The record showed that the proposal was processed continuously, that the sponsoring authority had collected a voluminous set of materials, and that further documents and representations were received at different stages and had to be examined by the departmental hierarchy. The time consumed in scrutiny of the record was explained by the continuous processing of the proposal and by the intervening stay and modification orders. In these circumstances, the delay was not treated as unexplained or as showing that the detention had become stale.

Conclusion: The challenge based on delay failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the detention order was vitiated by non-application of mind or mechanical adoption of a predecessor's draft.

Analysis: The detaining authority stated that she independently considered the proposal, the documents, the representations, and the grounds before reaching subjective satisfaction. The grounds themselves reflected consideration of later documents received after she assumed office, which negatived the suggestion that she merely signed an earlier draft prepared by her predecessor. The existence of a prior draft did not by itself vitiate the order once independent application of mind and fresh satisfaction were shown.

Conclusion: The challenge based on non-application of mind failed.

Issue (iii): Whether service of English documents without immediate translation violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The detenu acknowledged receipt of the documents, signed in English, and the record contained correspondence written by him in English. On that material, the detenu was found to be conversant with English. Translated copies were supplied within a short time after the request. The Court therefore found no breach of the constitutional safeguard requiring communication of grounds in a language understood by the detenu.

Conclusion: The challenge based on non-supply of translated documents failed.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was upheld, and the writ petition was found to be without merit.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order is not invalid merely because some time is spent in continuous processing of a voluminous proposal, provided the delay is satisfactorily explained; independent consideration by the detaining authority defeats a plea of mechanical exercise of power; and Article 22(5) is not violated where the detenu is shown to understand the language in which the documents were served and translations are promptly supplied on request.

---