Preventive detention and effective representation: detention failed for non-supply of relied upon material and unusable CCTV access.

Preventive detention was not invalidated by delay in execution or in considering representations, because the authorities had pursued service of the order and the representations were processed through the statutory advisory mechanism without unacceptable delay. The detention was nevertheless set aside because Article 22(5) and the detention scheme require relied upon material to be supplied in a meaningful form: merely giving the CCTV compact disc without a workable facility to view it was insufficient, and the failure to furnish the earlier favourable judgment deprived the detenu of an effective opportunity to represent his case. The omitted material formed part of the basis of detention, causing prejudice and vitiating continued detention.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention order was vitiated by delay in execution and delay in consideration of the representations; and (ii) whether non-supply of the earlier judgment and failure to provide an effective opportunity to view the CCTV footage violated the detenu's right to make an effective representation.

Issue (i): Whether the detention order was vitiated by delay in execution and delay in consideration of the representations.

Analysis: The challenge based on delay in execution was rejected on the facts, as the authorities had taken steps to trace and serve the detention order, including publication and proceedings under the statute, and the detenu was found and detained when his presence in the State was detected. The Court held that the question of snapping of the live link depends on the facts of each case and that, here, the passage of time by itself did not dislodge the detention. The challenge based on delay in considering the representations also failed, since the representations were forwarded to and considered by the Advisory Board in the course of the statutory process, and the subsequent consideration by the Government did not show unacceptable delay.

Conclusion: The detention order was not vitiated on the grounds of delay in execution or delay in consideration of the representations.

Issue (ii): Whether non-supply of the earlier judgment and failure to provide an effective opportunity to view the CCTV footage violated the detenu's right to make an effective representation.

Analysis: The Court held that Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the statutory detention scheme require communication of the grounds and the relied upon material in a meaningful manner. The CCTV footage was part of the foundation of the detention case, and merely supplying the compact disc without ensuring workable facilities to view it was insufficient. The earlier judgment in favour of co-noticees was also material to the detenu's defence and should have been supplied or placed before the Advisory Board. The Court found that these omissions caused prejudice and rendered the continued detention illegal.

Conclusion: The detention was vitiated because the detenu was denied an effective opportunity to make a representation owing to non-supply of material and failure to provide a real facility to view the CCTV footage.

Final Conclusion: The detention was upheld on the delay-related objections but set aside because the detenu's constitutional and statutory right to make an effective representation was infringed by the non-supply of material and the ineffective access to the CCTV footage.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, the detaining authority must furnish relied upon material in a meaningful form and ensure a practical opportunity to inspect such material so that the detenu can make an effective representation; failure to do so vitiates the detention when the omitted material forms part of the basis of detention.

---