Preventive detention safeguards breached by non-supply of relied-upon materials and unexplained delay in considering representation.

Non-supply of the basic materials relied upon for a preventive detention order deprives the detenu of an effective opportunity to make a representation and violates Article 22(5); the detention was therefore invalid. Unexplained and inordinate delay in disposing of the detenu's representation also breaches the same constitutional safeguard and vitiates continued detention; the detention was void on this ground as well. The detention was quashed and release was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention order was vitiated for failure to supply the detenu with the documents and materials forming the basis of detention along with the order and grounds; (ii) Whether unexplained delay in disposing of the detenu's representation violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and rendered the continued detention invalid.

Issue (i): Whether the detention order was vitiated for failure to supply the detenu with the documents and materials forming the basis of detention along with the order and grounds.

Analysis: The constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) requires effective communication of the grounds of detention, which necessarily includes the basic materials relied upon for the detention order. Where those documents and materials are withheld at the time the order and grounds are served, the detenu is deprived of a real opportunity to make an effective representation.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid on this ground and the finding is in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether unexplained delay in disposing of the detenu's representation violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and rendered the continued detention invalid.

Analysis: Prompt consideration of a representation against detention is an integral part of the constitutional protection against preventive detention. An inordinate and unexplained delay in dealing with the representation amounts to breach of the safeguard guaranteed by Article 22(5).

Conclusion: The continued detention was void on account of the unexplained delay, and this issue is also decided in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The detention was quashed for breach of the constitutional safeguards governing preventive detention, and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, non-supply of the materials relied upon for detention and unexplained delay in disposal of the detenu's representation each vitiate the detention for breach of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

---