Preventive detention requires full disclosure of vital material, and public order depends on disturbance of community life.

In preventive detention, non-supply of vital documents and non-placement of relevant material before the detaining authority can violate Article 22(5) by denying the detenu an effective representation, and the detention cannot stand where subjective satisfaction is formed without considering all material bearing on the grounds. The public order test turns on whether the act disturbs the even tempo of community life: conduct affecting only particular individuals remains a law and order issue, while incidents with wider public impact, such as firing in a public place causing panic, may satisfy the public order threshold. The article states that the detention was unsustainable because constitutional safeguards were breached, although two incidents were found to concern public order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-supply of vital documents and non-placement of relevant material before the detaining authority vitiated the detention order for denial of an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the incidents relied upon in the detention grounds disclosed a disturbance of public order or only a law and order problem.

Issue (i): Whether non-supply of vital documents and non-placement of relevant material before the detaining authority vitiated the detention order for denial of an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The grounds of detention were supported only by the first information reports and extracts of the charge-sheets, while the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which formed part of the investigation material, were not furnished to the detenus in time. Relevant material placed by co-accused before the Magistrate, and the corresponding bail material and police report, were also not placed before the detaining authority before the order was made. In preventive detention, all vital material bearing on the satisfaction of the authority must be considered, and omission of such material deprives the detenu of a fair opportunity to make an effective representation.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the incidents relied upon in the detention grounds disclosed a disturbance of public order or only a law and order problem.

Analysis: An act affects public order only when its reach, effect, and potentiality disturb the even tempo of the life of the community. A private crime affecting particular individuals may amount only to a breach of law and order, but firing in a public street or in a court compound, creating terror and panic among persons present, has a wider impact on public tranquility and community life. On the facts, the first incident was confined to individual victims and did not cross the threshold of public order, while the second and third incidents had the requisite public impact.

Conclusion: The first incident was only a law and order matter, while the second and third incidents did affect public order.

Final Conclusion: The detention could not be sustained because the constitutional safeguard of effective representation was violated and the required subjective satisfaction was undermined by non-consideration of vital material, even though two of the incidents were held to concern public order.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, every vital document and material bearing on the grounds of detention must be supplied or considered so as to preserve the detenu's right to an effective representation, and the test for public order is whether the act disturbs the even tempo of the life of the community.

---