Preventive detention review survives confirmation, but failure to supply relied upon documents can vitiate continued detention.

Preventive detention remains open to judicial review under Article 226 even after confirmation by the Advisory Board and the Government, because such confirmation does not create a merger with the original order. Documents forming the basis of subjective satisfaction must be supplied to the detenu to enable an effective representation under Article 22(5); failure to furnish relied upon material vitiates detention, even if the detenu may already know its contents. Delay in passing the order is not automatically fatal where the detention record shows continuing scrutiny and the nexus with prejudicial activity remains live. Custody does not by itself invalidate detention if the authority knows of it and expects imminent release.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a detention order under preventive detention law survives for challenge after confirmation by the Advisory Board and the Government, (ii) whether non-supply of documents referred to and relied upon in the grounds of detention vitiates the detention, (iii) whether alleged delay in passing the detention order snapped the live link with the prejudicial activity, and (iv) whether the grounds of detention failed to disclose post-return prejudicial activity or were invalid because the detenu was already in custody.

Issue (i): Whether a detention order under preventive detention law survives for challenge after confirmation by the Advisory Board and the Government.

Analysis: The opinion of the Advisory Board is not an adjudication and does not operate as an appellate or revisional order. The doctrine of merger does not apply because the Advisory Board and the confirming Government do not function as superior judicial forums, and the confirmation order merely continues the original detention order. Judicial review under Article 226 is therefore not excluded merely because the detention has been confirmed under the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable against the original detention order and continued detention.

Issue (ii): Whether non-supply of documents referred to and relied upon in the grounds of detention vitiates the detention.

Analysis: Documents that are relied upon for arriving at the subjective satisfaction must be furnished to the detenu so that an effective representation can be made. It is immaterial that the detenu may already know their contents. The materials referred to in the grounds concerning the past incidents, show-cause notices, prior proceedings, arrests, and confiscation were treated as part of the basis of detention and were not supplied, despite specific requests in the representation. Failure to furnish such relied upon materials impaired the constitutional right under Article 22(5).

Conclusion: Non-supply of the relied upon documents rendered the continued detention illegal.

Issue (iii): Whether alleged delay in passing the detention order snapped the live link with the prejudicial activity.

Analysis: Delay in making a preventive detention order is not mechanically fatal. The processing showed continuing consideration, consultation, and scrutiny of voluminous material in a group detention case. The time taken did not make the grounds stale or show that the nexus between the alleged activities and the need for detention had disappeared.

Conclusion: The detention order was not invalid on the ground of delay.

Issue (iv): Whether the grounds of detention failed to disclose post-return prejudicial activity or were invalid because the detenu was already in custody.

Analysis: The grounds expressly alleged that even after the return to India the detenu continued the same activities. As to custody, preventive detention can still be valid if the authority is aware of custody and has cogent material to believe that release is imminent and that prejudicial activity is likely thereafter. On the facts, the authority was aware of custody and could infer imminent release on default bail.

Conclusion: These challenges did not invalidate the detention order.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was sustainable on some grounds, but the continued detention failed because the relied upon documents were not supplied despite specific request, thereby violating the constitutional right to an effective representation.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, all documents forming the basis of subjective satisfaction must be supplied to the detenu to enable an effective representation, and failure to do so vitiates the detention even if other challenges fail.

---