Supreme Court Upholds Detention Order Appeal Dismissal, Emphasizes Right to Legible Documents

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision to set aside the detention orders. The Court emphasized that the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution includes the provision of legible documents. Supplying illegible documents violates this right and renders the detention order illegal, highlighting the significance of procedural safeguards in preventive detention to safeguard individual liberty.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legibility of documents supplied to the detenu.
2. Right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
3. Violation of procedural safeguards in preventive detention.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legibility of Documents Supplied to the Detenu:
The core issue in the appeals is whether the detenu was supplied with legible copies of documents relied upon by the detaining authority under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. The High Court of Manipur set aside the detention orders dated 17th May 2021, on the grounds that the documents provided were illegible and blurred, thus depriving the detenu of the ability to make an effective representation. The detenu in both cases specifically mentioned in their writ petitions that the documents at various page numbers were "all blurred and not readable." The appellants, in their counter-affidavits, claimed that all relevant documents were supplied and that the detenu did not raise any objections during the detention proceedings.

2. Right to Make an Effective Representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution:
Article 22(5) of the Constitution guarantees the detenu the right to be informed of the grounds of detention and the right to make an effective representation. The Supreme Court reiterated that the right to make a representation implies that the detenu should have all the information that will enable him to make an effective representation. The Court cited several precedents, including *Smt. Dharmista Bhagat v. State of Karnataka*, *Manjit Singh Grewal @ Gogi v. Union of India*, *Mehrunissa v. State of Maharashtra*, and *Bhupinder Singh v. Union of India*, which emphasize that the supply of legible documents is essential for the detenu to exercise this right effectively.

3. Violation of Procedural Safeguards in Preventive Detention:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the non-supply of legible documents amounts to a violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Court noted that even if the detenu did not raise the issue before the detaining authority, the fundamental right to make an effective representation remains protected. The Court referenced *Ramchandra A. Kamat v. Union of India* and *Union of India v. Ranu Bhandari* to highlight that the denial of legible documents is a violation of procedural safeguards, rendering the detention order illegal. The Court concluded that the detenu's inability to make an effective representation due to the supply of illegible documents invalidates the detention order, affirming the High Court's judgment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision to set aside the detention orders. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the right to make an effective representation is a fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, and any violation of this right, such as the supply of illegible documents, renders the detention order illegal. The Court emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards in preventive detention to protect individual liberty and freedom.

---