Preventive detention requires consideration of all relevant material; failure to consider advisory board proceedings vitiates continued detention.

In preventive detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, the detaining authority must consider all relevant material bearing on continued detention when dealing with a representation. Where the detention grounds relied on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the advisory board's opinion and proceedings concerning the persons whose statements were used were material circumstances. As those materials were not shown to have been placed before or considered by the detaining authority, the failure deprived the detenus of an effective representation and breached Article 22 of the Constitution. The continued detention was therefore held illegal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention orders and continued detention were vitiated because the detaining authority failed to consider relevant material, namely the advisory board's opinion and proceedings concerning persons whose statements had been relied upon, thereby violating the detenus' right under Article 22 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The detention was founded under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, and the grounds themselves showed reliance on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Since the detaining authority had relied on those statements, the subsequent release of the persons concerned by the advisory board was a material circumstance that could affect the question of continued detention. The record did not show that the advisory board's opinion or the related proceedings were placed before, or considered by, the detaining authority while dealing with the representations. The omission amounted to failure to consider relevant material and, therefore, a denial of the detenus' constitutional right to make an effective representation.

Conclusion: The continued detention was illegal and the writ petitions were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, all relevant material having a bearing on continued detention must be considered by the detaining authority when deciding the representation, and failure to do so vitiates the detention for breach of Article 22.

---