Preventive detention requires disclosure of basic material; composite grounds with non-existent statements cannot be saved by severability.

A preventive detention order was held unsustainable because the detention grounds referred to "statements of others" that were not on the record and were not supplied to the detenu, which amounted to non-application of mind and breached the requirement to furnish basic material under Article 22(5). Section 5A did not cure the defect because the reference to the petitioner's statement and the alleged statements of others formed one composite ground, not distinct and severable grounds. Ancillary circumstances, including surrender of passport and pending bail proceedings, did not validate the defective detention grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention order was vitiated for non-application of mind because the grounds referred to statements of other persons that did not exist on the record or were not supplied to the detenu; (ii) Whether the defect, if any, was saved by the doctrine of severability under Section 5A of the Act; (iii) Whether the surrounding circumstances, including surrender of passport and pendency of bail proceedings, sustained the subjective satisfaction for preventive detention.

Issue (i): Whether the detention order was vitiated for non-application of mind because the grounds referred to statements of other persons that did not exist on the record or were not supplied to the detenu.

Analysis: The detention grounds expressly referred to the "statements of others", but the record showed that no such statements had been recorded in the present case. The explanation that the reference related to an earlier adjudication record was found untenable. Since the detenu was entitled under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to receive all basic facts and material forming the grounds of detention, the reference to non-existent material showed mechanical and uninformed exercise of the power of detention.

Conclusion: Yes. The detention order was vitiated for non-application of mind.

Issue (ii): Whether the defect, if any, was saved by the doctrine of severability under Section 5A of the Act.

Analysis: Section 5A applies where an order rests on two or more distinct grounds. On the facts, the reference to the petitioner's statement and the alleged statements of others formed one composite ground, not separate and independent grounds. A non-existent component that entered into the very formation of the ground could not be severed away to preserve the order.

Conclusion: No. Section 5A did not save the detention order.

Issue (iii): Whether the surrounding circumstances, including surrender of passport and pendency of bail proceedings, sustained the subjective satisfaction for preventive detention.

Analysis: The absence of a passport did not by itself negate the possibility of future smuggling activity in the factual setting of the case. Likewise, repeated and pending bail efforts showed that release on bail could not be ruled out. These considerations did not, however, cure the foundational defect in the detention grounds.

Conclusion: The ancillary grounds did not sustain the detention order.

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention order could not be upheld because the core grounds reflected non-application of mind and the defect was not cured by severability or by the other surrounding circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a preventive detention order is founded on a composite ground that includes non-existent or undisclosed basic material, the order is vitiated for non-application of mind and cannot be preserved by Section 5A unless there are truly distinct and severable grounds.

---