Non-supply of relied upon detention material vitiates preventive detention for breach of the right to effective representation.

Non-supply of a relied upon detention order and other supporting materials violated Article 22(5) because a detenu must receive all basic facts, particulars, documents, statements, and materials forming the grounds of detention to make an effective representation. Mere communication of the grounds is insufficient where the supporting documents expressly relied on are withheld. On the admitted facts, the detention order of Anil Kumar was not furnished, and the supplied confirmation order was not the same document. The detention order was therefore vitiated.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated by non-supply of the relied upon document and other materials forming part of the grounds of detention, thereby denying the detenu an effective opportunity to make a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

Analysis: The grounds of detention expressly relied on the allegation that the detenu was abetting smuggling, and the detention order passed against the alleged mastermind was treated as a relied upon and relevant document. The constitutional requirement under Article 22(5) is that all basic facts, particulars, documents, statements, and materials relied upon in the grounds must be furnished to the detenu so that he may make an effective representation. The settled principle repeatedly reaffirmed by the Court is that mere communication of the grounds is insufficient if the supporting documents referred to or relied upon in those grounds are withheld. On the admitted facts, the detention order of Anil Kumar was not supplied, and the supplied confirmation order was not the same document.

Conclusion: The non-supply of the relied upon detention order violated Article 22(5) and vitiated the detention order.

---