Preventive detention fails when material grounds are withheld, defeating the detenue's right to effective representation under Article 22(5).

Detention orders are invalid where all material grounds are not communicated to the detenue, because Article 22(5) requires disclosure sufficient to enable an effective representation. Here, the authorities relied on additional considerations that were not furnished: in one case, the detenue's alleged dangerous and desperate habits, and in the other, alleged involvement in wagon breaking. As these undisclosed matters formed part of the basis of detention, the omission deprived the detenues of a meaningful opportunity to challenge the orders, rendering the detentions liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention orders were vitiated for failure to communicate all material grounds, thereby denying the detenues an effective opportunity to make a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

Analysis: The detention orders were founded on grounds that were only partly disclosed to the detenues. In one case, the detaining authority relied upon the detenue's alleged dangerous and desperate habits, but that circumstance was not communicated. In the other, the authority relied upon involvement in wagon breaking, but that allegation was not included in the particulars furnished. Since these additional considerations formed part of the basis of detention, omission to disclose them prevented an effective representation against the orders.

Conclusion: The detention orders were invalid for breach of Article 22(5) of the Constitution and were liable to be set aside.

---