Preventive detention requires specific, existing and relevant grounds; vague or non-existent allegations can invalidate the detention order.

Preventive detention grounds must be specific, existing and legally relevant so that the detenu can make an effective representation. A ground is vulnerable where it is vague, omits essential particulars, or lacks support in the material on record, and a ground that names a non-existent purchaser cannot sustain detention if the alleged factual basis was never communicated. Where a vital ground is defective, the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction cannot be preserved by relying only on the remaining grounds, because the Court cannot assume the same decision would have been reached without the defective material. The detention order was therefore treated as invalid for breach of constitutional safeguards.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention grounds in clause (a) were vague and irrelevant; (ii) whether the ground in clause (d) was non-existent; (iii) whether the remaining grounds could sustain the detention order despite the defects in the impugned grounds.

Issue (i): Whether the detention grounds in clause (a) were vague and irrelevant.

Analysis: The ground did not disclose the identity of the purchaser, the fixed price, or the alleged sale price. The detenu was therefore left to answer an indeterminate allegation, which denied him a real opportunity to challenge the factual basis of detention. The supposed reliance on manufacturer-fixed prices also lacked legal support on the material before the Court, and no breach of the relevant control order was shown. A detention ground must furnish particulars adequate for an effective representation, and a vague or legally irrelevant ground cannot satisfy that requirement.

Conclusion: The ground in clause (a) was vague and irrelevant.

Issue (ii): Whether the ground in clause (d) was non-existent.

Analysis: The detention ground named a purchaser at a place where, on the respondents' own showing, no such person existed. The attempted explanation that the place name was mistaken introduced a new factual basis not communicated to the detenu. A ground not actually communicated cannot support preventive detention because the detenu must be able to meet the precise allegation on which his liberty is curtailed.

Conclusion: The ground in clause (d) was non-existent.

Issue (iii): Whether the remaining grounds could sustain the detention order despite the defects in the impugned grounds.

Analysis: Preventive detention rests on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, but that satisfaction must be formed on all the grounds relied upon. Where a vital ground is vague or non-existent, the Court cannot assume that the authority would have reached the same satisfaction on the remaining material alone. The impugned defects were substantial and could have influenced the decision to detain, so the order as a whole could not stand.

Conclusion: The remaining grounds could not sustain the detention order.

Final Conclusion: Preventive detention orders must comply strictly with constitutional safeguards, and a detention based partly on vague or non-existent grounds is invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, each communicated ground must be specific, existing, and legally relevant; if a vital ground is vague or non-existent, the detention order is vitiated because subjective satisfaction cannot be upheld by ignoring the defective ground and relying only on the rest.

---