Preventive detention safeguards require prompt disclosure of relied-upon material and speedy consideration of representations, or detention becomes unlawful.

In preventive detention, the detenu must be supplied with the factual material, documents and statements relied on in the grounds of detention so that Article 22(5) affords a real and meaningful opportunity to make a representation; delayed supply of that material violates the constitutional safeguard. An unexplained delay in disposing of the detenu's representation is likewise fatal, because the representation must be considered expeditiously to preserve the effectiveness of the challenge. On the stated facts, the delayed supply of relied-upon material and the unexplained 25-day delay in dealing with the representation rendered the detention unlawful and the detenu was ordered to be released.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the documents and materials relied upon in the grounds of detention had to be supplied along with the grounds to enable an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether unexplained delay in disposing of the detenu's representation vitiated the detention.

Issue (i): whether the documents and materials relied upon in the grounds of detention had to be supplied along with the grounds to enable an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The grounds of detention are not complete unless the factual material, documents and statements relied upon are furnished to the detenu. The constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) requires a real and meaningful opportunity to make a representation, and that opportunity becomes illusory if the detenu is denied the very material on which the detention is founded. The supply of such material must therefore accompany the grounds or be made available without least possible delay.

Conclusion: The documents and materials were required to be supplied with the grounds of detention, and their delayed supply violated Article 22(5).

Issue (ii): whether unexplained delay in disposing of the detenu's representation vitiated the detention.

Analysis: A representation against preventive detention must be considered expeditiously. An unexplained delay in dealing with the representation defeats the constitutional guarantee of an effective opportunity to challenge detention and is treated as fatal to the order of detention. On the facts, the representation remained pending for about 25 days without explanation.

Conclusion: The unexplained delay in disposing of the representation vitiated the detention.

Final Conclusion: The continued detention was held to be unlawful because the constitutional safeguards governing preventive detention were not strictly observed, and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, the detenu must be furnished the documents and materials relied upon in the grounds of detention so as to permit an effective representation, and unexplained delay in considering that representation renders the detention void.

---