Preventive detention and non-supply of vital FIR material vitiated the order and impaired the right to representation.

In preventive detention, failure to place before the detaining authority and to furnish to the detenu a vital document that may reasonably affect subjective satisfaction vitiates the detention order. The FIR here related to the same export transactions and shipping bills forming the basis of detention, but it did not name the detenu and contained no suspicion against him; it was therefore a relevant material document that could have influenced the authority either way. Its suppression amounted to non-application of mind and also impaired the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5). The detention order was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-placement before the detaining authority, and non-supply to the detenu, of the FIR lodged by the CBI, which was a vital and relevant document bearing on subjective satisfaction, vitiated the detention order under preventive detention law and impaired the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The detention order was founded on the detenu's alleged role in preparing and signing export documents used in a smuggling and duty drawback fraud. The FIR, however, related to the very same export transactions and shipping bills, yet did not name the detenu and contained no whisper of suspicion against him. The FIR was therefore capable of affecting the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction one way or the other and could not be treated as extraneous. In preventive detention matters, every material document that may reasonably bear on the decision must be placed before the detaining authority, because the Court cannot speculate how such material would have influenced the subjective satisfaction. Non-placement of such vital material amounts to non-application of mind, and failure to furnish it to the detenu frustrates the constitutional right to make an effective representation.

Conclusion: The non-placement and non-supply of the FIR vitiated the detention order; the issue is decided in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The detention order could not be sustained in law because a vital, relevant document bearing directly on subjective satisfaction and the detenu's constitutional right of representation was withheld from both the detaining authority and the detenu.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention cases, suppression of a vital document that may reasonably influence the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction vitiates the order for non-application of mind and also impairs the detenu's right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to make an effective representation.

---