Preventive detention requires full supply of relied upon material; withheld footage and records vitiated the detention orders.

Preventive detention orders were held invalid because the real basis of subjective satisfaction was not fully disclosed to the detenus. The Court found that relied upon materials, including crucial video footage, call detail records, travel particulars and passport extracts, were not supplied in the form used for detention, preventing an effective representation. It also held that the detaining authority's satisfaction could not be sustained on undisclosed connecting material, so the orders were not legally supportable. The Court further affirmed that detenus are entitled to meaningful legal access, confidential lawyer interviews within sight but out of earshot, and fair visitation and Advisory Board procedures. The detenus were directed to be released forthwith.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the preventive detention orders were vitiated for non-supply of relied upon materials, including video footage, call detail records, travel details and passport extracts. (ii) Whether the detaining authority failed to apply its mind and whether the subjective satisfaction was unsupported by the materials supplied to the detenus. (iii) Whether the detenus were denied fair legal assistance and proper visitation facilities in connection with representation and Advisory Board proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the preventive detention orders were vitiated for non-supply of relied upon materials, including video footage, call detail records, travel details and passport extracts.

Analysis: The detention was founded on a chain of material beginning with seizure of contraband and the alleged link between the carrier, the customs official and the alleged syndicate. The video footage was treated as the crucial connecting link, while the call data records and travel particulars were relied on as corroborative material. The materials actually supplied to the detenus did not include the video footage itself in usable form, nor the full call records and complete passport details that were relied on in the detention orders. Such materials, when relied on for the subjective satisfaction, had to be furnished to enable an effective representation.

Conclusion: The non-supply of the relied upon materials vitiated the detention orders.

Issue (ii): Whether the detaining authority failed to apply its mind and whether the subjective satisfaction was unsupported by the materials supplied to the detenus.

Analysis: The record showed that the detention orders substantially tracked the sponsoring authority's material, but the detaining authority relied on a set of documents and tables that were not supplied in full to the detenus. The Court found that the crucial corroboration from the video footage, call records and travel documents was not available to the detenus in the form relied upon. Without those connecting links, the subjective satisfaction could not be sustained as having been formed on disclosed and supplied material. The detention therefore could not stand on severable grounds alone.

Conclusion: The subjective satisfaction was not legally sustainable and the detention orders were invalid.

Issue (iii): Whether the detenus were denied fair legal assistance and proper visitation facilities in connection with representation and Advisory Board proceedings.

Analysis: The Court held that a detenu's lawyer must be permitted meaningful access, and no rigid weekly restriction could be imposed merely as a matter of jail practice. Any interview with counsel or official presence had to preserve confidentiality and fairness, with the interview allowed within sight but out of earshot. The procedure before the Advisory Board also had to remain fair and transparent, and authorities could not rely on undisclosed material in that process.

Conclusion: The detenus were entitled to fair legal access and visitation safeguards consistent with constitutional and procedural fairness.

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention orders could not be sustained for want of supply of essential relied upon material and for lack of legally adequate support to the subjective satisfaction, and the detenus were directed to be released forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi: Where preventive detention is founded on particular materials, the materials that constitute the real basis of subjective satisfaction must be disclosed and supplied to the detenu, and detention cannot be sustained if the crucial connecting documents or footage relied upon are withheld.

---