Preventive detention and full disclosure: withholding material relied on by the detaining authority invalidated the order.

Preventive detention for theft of telecommunication cables was treated as capable of falling within action prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, and detention fixed by reference to the life of the Defence of India Act, 1971 was not regarded as indefinite under Article 22(7). The absence of a counter-affidavit by the District Magistrate was viewed as a serious procedural defect, but the detention ultimately failed because material relied upon by the detaining authority, including undisclosed information describing the detenu as a habitual or dangerous offender, was not communicated. That non-disclosure deprived the detenu of an effective opportunity to represent against the order, violating Article 22(5) and the statutory safeguards.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether theft of telecommunication cables could fall within detention on the ground of acting prejudicially to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community; (ii) whether fixation of detention by reference to the life of the Defence of India Act, 1971 rendered the detention period indefinite under Article 22(7); (iii) whether the failure of the District Magistrate to file the counter-affidavit invalidated the detention; and (iv) whether non-communication of the material relied upon by the detaining authority violated Article 22(5).

Issue (i): Whether theft of telecommunication cables could fall within detention on the ground of acting prejudicially to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.

Analysis: The expressions "supplies" and "services" in the preventive detention statute were construed pragmatically in the setting of the community's essential needs. The reasoning treated telecommunication cables, power mains and similar instrumentalities as part of the means through which essential supplies and services are maintained. Where the same conduct disrupts an essential service and the medium by which it is rendered, the distinction between supplies and services may collapse into one another.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the ground was held to be valid against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether fixation of detention by reference to the life of the Defence of India Act, 1971 rendered the detention period indefinite under Article 22(7).

Analysis: The point was treated as already concluded by an earlier decision of the Court on the meaning of "maximum period" in Article 22(7). The Court accepted that Parliament could fix the detention period by reference to the duration of an emergency or a connected statutory regime and that such fixation did not make the period indefinite for constitutional purposes.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the detention period was not held to be unconstitutional on this ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the failure of the District Magistrate to file the counter-affidavit invalidated the detention.

Analysis: In habeas corpus proceedings, the proper deponent is ordinarily the authority that passed the detention order, or failing that, a senior officer personally associated with the matter. A mechanical affidavit based only on official records is not an adequate answer where the validity of the detention and the factual basis for subjective satisfaction are directly in issue.

Conclusion: The omission was treated as a serious defect, though not by itself the sole basis of the decision, and it weighed against the State.

Issue (iv): Whether non-communication of the material relied upon by the detaining authority violated Article 22(5).

Analysis: The detention was founded not merely on the communicated incidents of theft, but also on undisclosed material describing the detenu as a habitual or dangerous offender. That material formed part of the basis of the detaining authority's satisfaction and was not shown to be privileged under Article 22(6). Since the detenu was not apprised of the full grounds and material, he was deprived of an effective opportunity to make a representation.

Conclusion: The detention was held illegal for violation of Article 22(5) and the relevant statutory safeguards.

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention orders could not be sustained because the decisive material relied upon by the detaining authority had not been communicated, thereby defeating the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention becomes invalid where material forming part of the basis of the detention is withheld from the detenu and is necessary for an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

---