Effective communication of relied-upon detention material is mandatory; unreadable CCTV supply vitiated preventive detention.

Preventive detention under COFEPOSA requires that all relied upon materials be effectively communicated within the prescribed time so the detenus can make a meaningful representation under Article 22(5). Where CCTV footage formed part of the grounds of detention, supplying only a compact disc without any facility to view the footage was not proper communication. A later opportunity to view the footage before the Advisory Board did not cure the initial breach, because the right to represent to the detaining authority, the Central Government and the Advisory Board is independent. The detention orders were therefore unsustainable and release was directed if the detenus were not otherwise required.

---

---

Issues: Whether continued preventive detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was vitiated because the CCTV footage relied upon in the grounds of detention was not effectively communicated to the detenus within the time prescribed, thereby denying them an effective opportunity to make a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The grounds of detention showed that the CCTV footage was not a mere incidental reference but a relied upon material forming part of the basis of the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction. Under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, the detaining authority must communicate the grounds of detention and supply all relied upon documents so that the detenu can make an effective and meaningful representation. The statutory time requirement under Section 3(3) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 reinforces that the material relied upon must be effectively furnished within the prescribed period. Supplying only a compact disc without any facility to view the footage did not amount to proper communication. Belated viewing of the footage before the Advisory Board did not cure the initial infringement, because the right to make a representation to the detaining authority, the Central Government and the Advisory Board is independent and cannot be diluted by later opportunity before one forum.

Conclusion: The continued detention was illegal because the relied upon CCTV footage was not effectively communicated to the detenus within the constitutional and statutory time limits.

Final Conclusion: The detention orders could not be sustained, and the detenus were directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Ratio Decidendi: When a detention order under preventive detention law relies on a document, effective communication of that material within the prescribed time is mandatory; mere physical supply of a medium that cannot be accessed for viewing does not satisfy Article 22(5) if it prevents an effective representation.

---