Preventive detention fails when a communicated ground is vague and denies an effective representation under Article 22(5).

In preventive detention, each communicated ground must contain sufficient particulars to enable an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the ground alleging unauthorised milling of paddy and smuggling of rice was not merely imprecise but an independent substantive ground lacking particulars of time, place, or instance, so it could not be treated as a mere inference from seizure details. Because detention rested on multiple grounds and one valid basis was absent, the detention orders were vitiated. The pending reference before the Advisory Board did not prevent examination of the already breached constitutional safeguard, and the detenus were entitled to release.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention orders were vitiated because one of the communicated grounds was vague and insufficient to enable an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

Analysis: The grounds of detention must communicate enough particulars to enable the detenu to make an effective representation. The majority held that the first ground, relating to unauthorised milling of paddy and smuggling of resultant rice to Meghalaya, was not merely imprecise but an independent ground referring to past activity without particulars of time, place, or instance. It could not be treated as a mere inference from the seizure details, and the absence of particulars meant that the petitioners were denied the constitutional safeguard of an effective representation. Since detention rested on multiple grounds and one ground was invalid, the order could not be sustained. The pending reference before the Advisory Board did not bar the Court from examining whether the constitutional right had already been infringed.

Conclusion: The detention orders were vitiated for vagueness of a communicated ground, and the petitioners were entitled to release.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, each communicated ground must contain sufficient particulars to permit an effective representation under Article 22(5); if one substantive ground is vague and forms part of the basis of detention, the detention is invalid.

---