Preventive detention safeguard requires particulars for each ground; a vague ground can invalidate the detention order.

A chronological mistake in the grounds of detention did not by itself establish non-application of mind where the record showed that the detaining authority had considered the relevant material before issuing the order. By contrast, a communicated ground stated in vague terms without sufficient particulars to enable an effective representation breached the constitutional safeguard in preventive detention. Each ground must be supported by particulars adequate for a meaningful reply, subject to any valid claim of privilege. Because one ground failed that standard, the detention was treated as unlawful and release followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention order was vitiated on the ground that the detaining authority had failed to apply its mind to the relevant material, as suggested by the chronological error in the grounds of detention. (ii) Whether a ground of detention stated in vague terms, without sufficient particulars to enable an effective representation, invalidated the detention under the constitutional safeguards governing preventive detention.

Issue (i): Whether the detention order was vitiated on the ground that the detaining authority had failed to apply its mind to the relevant material, as suggested by the chronological error in the grounds of detention.

Analysis: The grounds referred to an incident occurring after the arrest, which created an obvious lapse in chronology and reflected carelessness. Even so, the record contained the detaining authority's affidavit that the relevant reports and materials had been carefully perused and considered before the detention order was made. On that basis, the Court was not prepared to infer absence of application of mind merely from the mistaken chronology.

Conclusion: The detention order was not struck down on the ground of non-application of mind.

Issue (ii): Whether a ground of detention stated in vague terms, without sufficient particulars to enable an effective representation, invalidated the detention under the constitutional safeguards governing preventive detention.

Analysis: The constitutional safeguard requires that the detained person be furnished with particulars sufficient to make a representation capable of obtaining relief. That requirement must be satisfied in relation to each communicated ground, subject to any valid claim of privilege. The impugned ground was held to be vague and unsupported by adequate particulars, leaving the petitioner without a fair opportunity to answer it effectively. Since the safeguard was not met in respect of that ground, the detention could not be treated as having been made according to procedure established by law.

Conclusion: The vague ground vitiated the detention and the petitioner was entitled to release.

Final Conclusion: Preventive detention was held unlawful because one of the communicated grounds lacked the particulars necessary for an effective constitutional representation, and the petitioner was ordered to be released forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, each communicated ground must be accompanied by particulars sufficient to enable an effective representation, and failure to satisfy that requirement in respect of any ground renders the detention unlawful.

---