Preventive detention and Article 22(5): delay in supplying relied-upon material vitiated the detention despite competence challenges failing.

Preventive detention was upheld as valid on competence grounds because the order was made by the Minister concerned, and the representation was rejected by an authority competent under the applicable Rules of Business. The detention nevertheless failed because Article 22(5) required prompt supply of all basic facts and materials relied upon in the grounds of detention to enable an effective representation. Refusal to furnish the relied-upon statements and documents was mechanical, and the eventual supply was delayed by more than a month, which prevented a full and effective representation. The detention was therefore vitiated for breach of the constitutional safeguard.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention order was invalid because it was not made by the competent authority under the Rules of Business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the refusal and delay in supplying the statements and documents relied upon in the grounds of detention violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and vitiated the detention. (iii) Whether the rejection of the detenus' representations was made by an incompetent authority.

Issue (i): Whether the detention order was invalid because it was not made by the competent authority under the Rules of Business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The record showed that the matter was placed before the Minister concerned and that the detention order was in fact passed by the Minister. The challenge based on want of authority of the Secretary therefore failed.

Conclusion: The detention order was not invalid on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the refusal and delay in supplying the statements and documents relied upon in the grounds of detention violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and vitiated the detention.

Analysis: Article 22(5) requires not only communication of the grounds of detention but also supply, with reasonable expedition, of all basic facts and materials relied upon in the grounds so as to enable an effective representation. The grounds served on the detenus contained only the substance of the statements, whereas full copies of the relied-upon statements and documents were sought. The refusal was mechanical, based on an unconsidered public-interest objection, and the eventual supply was delayed by more than a month. The delay and non-supply of basic material prevented a full and effective representation.

Conclusion: The detention was vitiated on this ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the rejection of the detenus' representations was made by an incompetent authority.

Analysis: The office record showed that the representation dated March 24, 1980 was considered by the Adviser to the Governor of Maharashtra, who was competent under the Rules of Business then in force. The challenge to the rejection thus failed.

Conclusion: The rejection of the representation was not illegal on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The detention could not survive because the constitutional requirement of supplying the relied-upon basic material with reasonable promptitude was not satisfied, and the writ petitions were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, Article 22(5) obliges the detaining authority to furnish, with reasonable expedition, all basic facts and materials relied upon in the grounds of detention, and a mechanical refusal or inordinate delay in supplying such material vitiates the detention.

---