Preventive detention under NDPS law stands when relied-upon materials are supplied and the detenue gets a real chance to represent.

In preventive detention under the NDPS law, an order is not vitiated for non-application of mind where the detaining authority relies on proximate antecedents and connected materials showing a rational basis for preventive action. The constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) is satisfied if the documents forming the foundation of detention are supplied and the detenue is given a real opportunity to make a representation; every document referred to in the grounds need not be furnished. On the stated facts, the detention materials were served, the grounds were explained in the detenue's language, and no effective denial of representation was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention order under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 was vitiated for non-application of mind, and (ii) whether the detenue was denied the safeguards under Article 22(5) of the Constitution by non-supply of material documents and inadequate opportunity to make a representation.

Issue (i): Whether the detention order under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 was vitiated for non-application of mind.

Analysis: The detention was founded on the detenue's involvement in two NDPS cases, the earlier one ending in charge-sheet and the later one showing continued involvement in illicit trafficking. The grounds of detention referred to the antecedents and the materials placed before the detaining authority, including the proposal from the police authorities. The Court found that the antecedents were proximate in time and had a rational connection with the satisfaction that preventive detention was necessary to prevent further similar activity.

Conclusion: The detention order was not vitiated for non-application of mind and this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the detenue was denied the safeguards under Article 22(5) of the Constitution by non-supply of material documents and inadequate opportunity to make a representation.

Analysis: The Court held that only those documents which form the foundation of the detention order must be supplied to enable an effective representation, and that every referred document need not be furnished. On the record, the detention order and grounds were served, the proposal and connected papers were supplied and acknowledged, the grounds were explained in the detenue's mother tongue, and he was informed of his right to represent before the detaining authority, the Government and the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board also recorded that no representation was filed and that the detenue was heard.

Conclusion: There was no breach of Article 22(5), and this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention was upheld as founded on relevant materials and attended by the required constitutional safeguards, so the writ petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, non-supply of every document referred to in the grounds does not vitiate the order unless a material document relied upon to reach subjective satisfaction is withheld, and the detenue is otherwise denied a real and effective opportunity to make a representation.

---