Preventive detention fails when relied-on statements are withheld and the authority relies on a materially inaccurate factual basis.
Preventive detention is invalid where material statements relied upon in the grounds are withheld, because the detenu is then denied an effective opportunity to make a representation under Article 22(5). The detention is also unsustainable where the detaining authority proceeds on a factual premise materially different from the record, such as treating an unexecuted attempt as actual diversion of funds. In both situations, the constitutional right to representation is prejudiced and the order is vitiated for breach of Article 22(5) and non-application of mind.
Issues: (i) Whether the detention was invalid for failure to supply copies of material statements relied upon in the grounds of detention, thereby denying an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the detention order was vitiated by non-application of mind because the detaining authority proceeded on a case of actual diversion of government funds when the material disclosed only an alleged attempt.
Issue (i): Whether the detention was invalid for failure to supply copies of material statements relied upon in the grounds of detention, thereby denying an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The grounds of detention rested materially on statements that directly bore upon the alleged assistance to the unlawful organisation and the manner in which bill forms and letter heads were obtained. Those statements formed part of the basic facts and materials considered by the detaining authority in recording subjective satisfaction. Without copies of those statements, the detenu could not effectively deny, explain, or rebut the alleged admissions and allegations of coercion or extortion. The omission therefore impaired the constitutional right to make an effective representation.
Conclusion: The detention was vitiated for breach of Article 22(5) and was unsustainable on this ground.
Issue (ii): Whether the detention order was vitiated by non-application of mind because the detaining authority proceeded on a case of actual diversion of government funds when the material disclosed only an alleged attempt.
Analysis: The grounds communicated to the detenu asserted that a huge sum of government money had in fact been diverted to the unlawful organisation. The material placed before the Court, however, showed that the bills had not been paid and at the highest there was only an alleged attempt to divert funds. The detaining authority thus proceeded on a factual premise inconsistent with the actual material, which meant the detenu was called upon to meet a case different from the one established by the record. That discrepancy amounted to non-application of mind and caused prejudice in the exercise of the right of representation.
Conclusion: The detention order was also vitiated by non-application of mind and could not be sustained.
Final Conclusion: The preventive detention order was quashed because the constitutional right to effective representation was breached and the order was based on an erroneous and incomplete appreciation of the material facts.
Ratio Decidendi: Where material statements relied upon in preventive detention are withheld, or the detaining authority proceeds on a factual basis materially different from the record, the detention is invalid for breach of Article 22(5) and non-application of mind.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
