Preventive detention invalid for nondisclosure of material antecedents, as Article 22(5) requires full grounds for representation.

Preventive detention was vitiated where the detaining authority relied on undisclosed material, including a history sheet and prior criminal antecedents, in forming subjective satisfaction, because Article 22(5) requires that the detenu be furnished with all material actually influencing detention. Withholding those additional grounds deprived the detenu of an effective opportunity to make a representation. The detention order was therefore unsustainable and immediate release followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was invalid because the detaining authority relied on undisclosed material facts and criminal antecedents, thereby infringing Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The detention was founded not merely on the communicated incident but also on a history sheet showing previous criminal antecedents and notoriety. Those additional circumstances formed part of the basis of the authority's subjective satisfaction, yet they were not communicated to the detenu. Since the grounds supplied to the detenu must include the material that actually influenced the detention, withholding such material deprived him of an effective opportunity to make a representation.

Conclusion: The detention order was vitiated for breach of Article 22(5) and could not be sustained; the petitioner was entitled to immediate release.

---