Preventive detention and Article 22(5): relied-on documents must be supplied, or continued detention becomes unlawful.

In preventive detention, approval is not invalid merely because the grounds for the detenu and his brother were identical, where the approving authority had the brother's grounds before it and could be taken to have considered the relevant material; this challenge failed. However, Article 22(5) requires supply not only of the grounds of detention but also of the documents referred to and relied upon in those grounds. Failure to furnish those documents is a serious breach of the constitutional safeguard and vitiates continued detention; the detention order was sustained on the first ground, but the continued detention became unlawful and release followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order of detention was invalid for want of application of mind by the approving authority to the grounds of detention. (ii) Whether non-supply of the documents referred to and relied upon in the grounds of detention vitiated the continued detention under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the order of detention was invalid for want of application of mind by the approving authority to the grounds of detention.

Analysis: The grounds of detention relating to the detenu and his brother were identical, and the approving authority had before it the grounds in the brother's case. On that basis, the approval could not be said to have been granted without consideration of the relevant grounds.

Conclusion: This challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether non-supply of the documents referred to and relied upon in the grounds of detention vitiated the continued detention under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Mere service of the grounds of detention does not satisfy the constitutional requirement unless the accompanying documents referred to or relied upon are also supplied to the detenu. The omission to furnish those documents amounted to a serious breach of the mandatory safeguard.

Conclusion: The continued detention was invalid.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was sustained on the first ground, but the non-supply of relied upon documents rendered the continued detention unlawful, entitling the detenu to release.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, Article 22(5) requires that the detenu be supplied not only the grounds of detention but also the documents relied upon in those grounds, and failure to do so vitiates the detention.

---