Preventive detention jurisdiction and effective representation rights: non-supply of vital documents vitiates detention.

Territorial jurisdiction in a preventive detention habeas corpus petition lies where a substantial part of the cause of action arises, including service of the detention order and deprivation of liberty; the place of seizure alone does not oust jurisdiction, so the High Court could entertain the petition. Non-supply of vital documents specifically sought by the detenue, where those documents were necessary for an effective further representation, infringed the constitutional right of representation and vitiated the detention; the objections on the form of the representation and on prejudice were rejected, and the detention was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the habeas corpus petition challenging the detention order. (ii) Whether non-supply of the requested vital documents and delay in dealing with the third representation violated the detenue's constitutional and statutory rights, rendering the detention order invalid.

Issue (i): Territorial jurisdiction in a detention matter depends on where a substantial part of the cause of action arises. Where the detention order, service of grounds, and deprivation of liberty occurred within the forum State, the mere fact that the seizure took place elsewhere does not oust jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

Issue (ii): A detenue has a constitutional right to make a representation, and detention law also permits repeated representations for revocation. When the detenue specifically seeks vital documents necessary to pursue further representation, non-supply of those documents infringes the right to effective representation and vitiates the detention. The objection that the representation was addressed to a different Government officer was rejected, as was the objection that the plea of prejudice was unavailable on the pleadings.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid for non-supply of vital documents and the resulting prejudice to the detenue.

Final Conclusion: The detention was quashed and the detenue was directed to be released forthwith unless required in some other case.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, jurisdiction lies where a substantial part of the cause of action, including service of the order and deprivation of liberty, occurs, and failure to supply vital documents necessary for an effective representation vitiates the detention.

---