Preventive detention and supply of relied-upon documents: non-supply of unrelied retractions and bail applications did not vitiate detention

In preventive detention, only documents actually relied upon and material to the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction must be supplied to the detenu. The Court found that the alleged retractions were not shown to have been served on the revenue or brought to the sponsoring authority's notice before the detention order, and the detenu gave no better particulars to prove otherwise. The bail applications contained only a general plea of false implication, while the bail orders were supplied; because the detention order did not rely on the bail applications, their non-supply caused no prejudice. The detention order was therefore not vitiated by non-consideration or non-supply of the alleged retractions, bail applications, or co-detenus' statements.

---

---

Issues: Whether the preventive detention order was vitiated for non-consideration or non-supply of alleged retractions, bail applications, and statements said to be vital documents, and whether the detenu was thereby denied an effective representation.

Analysis: The challenge was founded on the contention that retractions of statements and bail applications were not placed before the Detaining Authority or supplied to the detenu. The record showed that the alleged retractions were not served on the revenue or its advocate, and the sponsoring authority was not shown to have knowledge of them before the detention order. The detenu also did not furnish better particulars showing that the documents were brought to the notice of the sponsoring authority. The bail applications contained only a general plea of false implication, while the bail orders themselves were supplied. Since the detention order did not rely upon the bail applications, their non-supply did not prejudice the detenu. The Court held that documents merely referred to in narration, but not relied upon for subjective satisfaction, did not have to be supplied, and the confessional statements relied upon remained available for consideration in the absence of proved retraction.

Conclusion: The detention order was not vitiated on the ground of non-consideration or non-supply of the alleged retractions, bail applications, or co-detenus' statements, and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, only those documents which are actually relied upon and which materially influence the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction must be supplied to the detenu; where an alleged retraction is not shown to have been communicated to the sponsoring authority or relied upon in the detention order, non-consideration or non-supply does not vitiate the detention.

---