Preventive detention and severability: non-supply of material vitiated one ground, but independent grounds sustained the order.

Non-supply and non-consideration of seized documents and seizure details relating to one factual basis for preventive detention were treated as a breach of Article 22(5) because those materials formed part of the basic grounds and were necessary for an effective representation; that separable ground was therefore unsustainable. The detention was nevertheless upheld under Section 5A of the COFEPOSA Act because the challenged material constituted only one independent ground, while the remaining allegations were supported by separate factual foundations and could stand on their own. The severability doctrine thus saved the order, and the writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-supply and non-consideration of the seized documents and seizure details relating to Pooran Chand Sharma, referred to in the detention grounds, vitiated the detention for breach of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the impugned detention could nevertheless be sustained by segregating the challenged ground under Section 5A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 and treating the remaining grounds as independent and valid.

Issue (i): Whether non-supply and non-consideration of the seized documents and seizure details relating to Pooran Chand Sharma, referred to in the detention grounds, vitiated the detention for breach of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The detention grounds specifically stated that all seizure details from the search of Pooran Chand Sharma were withheld in public interest, while only the statement, retraction, and departmental reply were supplied. The detention order also relied upon the search conducted against Pooran Chand Sharma and treated the seized material as part of the factual basis for concluding that the detenu remained involved in hawala dealings. On that footing, the seized document and related materials were not mere incidental references but formed part of the basic facts supporting the detention grounds. Their non-consideration and non-furnishing deprived the detenu of a meaningful opportunity to explain the material and indicated non-application of mind.

Conclusion: The challenge on this ground was accepted and the detention was found unsustainable to that extent.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned detention could nevertheless be sustained by segregating the challenged ground under Section 5A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 and treating the remaining grounds as independent and valid.

Analysis: The grounds of detention were not a single composite ground. The material relating to Pooran Chand Sharma constituted one separable ground, while the other allegations concerning earlier searches, seizures, statements, and hawala transactions were independent grounds supported by separate factual foundations. Under Section 5A, where an order rests on more than one ground, invalidity of one ground does not vitiate the entire order if the remaining grounds survive on their own. The court therefore applied the doctrine of segregation and held that the valid grounds remained capable of sustaining the detention order.

Conclusion: The detention was upheld on the remaining valid grounds notwithstanding the defect in the Pooran Chand Sharma-related ground.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was ultimately sustained because the invalidity found in one separable ground did not affect the independently supportable remaining grounds, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a preventive detention case, failure to supply or consider material that forms part of a separable ground may invalidate that ground for breach of the detenu's right to effective representation, but the detention order survives if other independent grounds remain valid under the statutory rule of severability.

---