Preventive detention order vitiated when one of two grounds is non-existent; Article 22(5) representation held adequate.

A preventive detention order based on multiple grounds is vitiated as a whole if one admitted ground is non-existent, irrelevant, or illusory, because the Court will not substitute an objective reassessment for the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction. The constitutional requirement under Article 22(5) is satisfied if the particulars furnished enable an effective representation; on the facts, the particulars relating to the second ground were held adequate. The detention could not therefore be sustained in law, and release followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a detention order founded on two grounds is vitiated when one ground is admitted to be non-existent or irrelevant. (ii) Whether the particulars supplied to the detenu were sufficient to enable an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

Issue (i): Whether a detention order founded on two grounds is vitiated when one ground is admitted to be non-existent or irrelevant.

Analysis: The validity of a detention order under preventive detention law depends upon the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The Court cannot reassess the sufficiency or truth of the grounds, but where the Government itself admits that one of the grounds on which the order was made did not exist, the order cannot be sustained by treating the remaining ground as sufficient by an objective judicial test. Where the order rests on two grounds and one is bad, irrelevant, or illusory, the detention order is vitiated as a whole.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid on this ground and the petitioner succeeded.

Issue (ii): Whether the particulars supplied to the detenu were sufficient to enable an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

Analysis: The Court held that the constitutional requirement is met if the particulars furnished are sufficient to enable an effective representation. On the facts, the particulars supplied in relation to the second ground were not found to be inadequate or constitutionally deficient.

Conclusion: The challenge on this ground failed.

Final Conclusion: The detention could not be sustained in law, and the petitioner was entitled to be released.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a preventive detention order is based on multiple grounds and one ground is admitted to be non-existent or irrelevant, the order is vitiated as a whole because the Court cannot substitute its own objective assessment for the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction.

---