Preventive detention fails when prior revoked grounds, unreadable records, and uncommunicated material defeat the right to effective representation.

A preventive detention order is unsustainable if the detaining authority relies on a prior revoked or set-aside order or its grounds instead of fresh or additional material, because that vitiates the requisite subjective satisfaction. It is also invalid where relied-upon documents are not supplied in complete and legible form, since the detenu is denied an effective constitutional opportunity to make a representation. The order further fails where it is based on uncommunicated material or undisclosed factual foundations, because the grounds do not fully disclose the basis of detention. These defects collectively breach the safeguards governing preventive detention.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the earlier detention order and its grounds could be taken into account while forming subjective satisfaction for the impugned detention order; (ii) whether non-supply and supply of illegible or incomplete documents violated the detenu's right to make an effective representation; (iii) whether reliance on uncommunicated materials vitiated the detention order.

Issue (i): whether the earlier detention order and its grounds could be taken into account while forming subjective satisfaction for the impugned detention order

Analysis: A subsequent detention order can be sustained only on fresh or additional material. A prior order that has been revoked or set aside cannot be used, either wholly or partly, to support the subjective satisfaction for a fresh detention order. The reference to the earlier order and its grounds in the impugned order showed that the detaining authority had taken that material into account. That vitiated the satisfaction on which the impugned order rested.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner and against the detention order.

Issue (ii): whether non-supply and supply of illegible or incomplete documents violated the detenu's right to make an effective representation

Analysis: The constitutional safeguard requires all documents, statements and materials relied upon in the grounds of detention to be furnished pari passu with the grounds. If supplied copies are incomplete, illegible, or materially different from the relied upon record, the detenu is effectively deprived of the means to contest the detention. The failure to supply complete and legible copies of the relied upon materials, including documents forming part of the shipping records and related papers, amounted to non-compliance with the mandatory safeguard.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner and against the detention order.

Issue (iii): whether reliance on uncommunicated materials vitiated the detention order

Analysis: Grounds of detention must disclose the basic facts and materials actually taken into account. Where the authority proceeds on materials not communicated to the detenu, or uses descriptive assertions that depend on undisclosed factual basis, the right of representation is impaired. In the present matter, the uncommunicated materials and the reliance on them in the grounds showed failure to communicate the full factual basis of detention.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner and against the detention order.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was held unsustainable for breach of the constitutional safeguards governing preventive detention, and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order is invalid if the detaining authority relies on prior revoked grounds, fails to furnish complete and legible copies of all relied upon materials, or bases the order on uncommunicated factual material, because such defects defeat the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation.

---