Preventive detention fails where vital relied-upon material is withheld, undermining subjective satisfaction and effective representation.

Preventive detention was held unsustainable where vital material relied on for subjective satisfaction was not supplied or properly considered. The detaining authority relied on earlier adjudication orders and seized documents, but the sponsoring authority withheld material facts about a conditional stay and a prior setting aside and remand, while diary pages, CPU contents and other seized material were not furnished pari passu. The detention also rested on an unsupported allegation of harbouring smugglers and an unexplained reference to pending prosecution. Such non-disclosure and lack of tangible material violated Article 22(5) and rendered the detention order invalid, leading to release unless required in another case.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention order was vitiated by non-supply and non-consideration of vital material relied upon for subjective satisfaction, including earlier adjudication orders and seized documents; (ii) whether the detention order could be sustained when the allegation of harbouring persons engaged in smuggling and the reference to pending prosecution were not supported by disclosed material.

Issue (i): Whether the detention order was vitiated by non-supply and non-consideration of vital material relied upon for subjective satisfaction, including earlier adjudication orders and seized documents.

Analysis: The detention order relied upon earlier adjudication orders and other material said to show a habitual pattern of smuggling activity. The sponsoring authority did not place before the detaining authority the material facts that one adjudication order had the benefit of a conditional stay and another had already been set aside and remanded. The seized documents, diary pages, CPU contents and other materials referred to in the panchnama were also not supplied pari passu, though they formed part of the basis of detention. The withholding of such vital material deprived the detenu of an effective representation and undermined the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction.

Conclusion: The detention order was vitiated on this ground and could not be sustained, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the detention order could be sustained when the allegation of harbouring persons engaged in smuggling and the reference to pending prosecution were not supported by disclosed material.

Analysis: The grounds of detention asserted that the detenu had harboured persons engaged in smuggling, but no particulars or supporting material were disclosed to show any act of providing lodging, shelter or refuge. The reference to pending prosecution was also made without proper disclosure of the relevant proceedings and without a satisfactory explanation of the legal basis for relying on that circumstance. In preventive detention matters, such unsupported assumptions cannot substitute for material facts capable of justifying detention.

Conclusion: The detention order failed on these grounds as well and was liable to be quashed, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the impugned preventive detention was set aside with a direction for the detenu's release unless required in any other case.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, all vital and relied upon material forming the basis of subjective satisfaction must be supplied and considered; failure to disclose or consider such material, or to support a serious ground like harbouring by tangible facts, violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and invalidates the detention order.

---