Effective representation in detention requires supply of relied-upon remand records; non-supply can vitiate continued detention.

Non-supply of a remand order relied upon in a detention case can violate the detenu's right to make an effective representation when the document is necessary for rebuttal or may contain material not fully reflected in the sponsoring authority's report. The detaining authority must furnish such a document if requested, and cannot refuse it merely on its own view that it is unnecessary. On these facts, the denial of the remand order prejudiced the detenu's constitutional opportunity to represent his case and vitiated the continued detention, leading to release unless required in any other case.

---

---

Issues: Whether the non-supply of the remand order sought by the detenu, though relied upon for the detention order, deprived him of an effective opportunity to make a representation and rendered the continued detention illegal.

Analysis: The detaining authority relied upon the fact of remand, but when the detenu requested the remand order, the authorities were bound to furnish it if it was necessary for an effective representation. The remand order could contain complaints of ill-treatment made before the Magistrate, which might not be accurately reflected in the sponsoring authority's report. The detenu's right to be supplied all necessary documents for making an effective representation must be zealously safeguarded, and the authority cannot deny a document merely on its own view that it is unnecessary.

Conclusion: The non-supply of the remand order prejudiced the detenu's right to make an effective representation and vitiated the continued detention; the writ petition was allowed and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

---