Preventive detention needs intelligible grounds and clarified records; defective translation and unexplained discrepancies can vitiate the order.

Preventive detention requires that the grounds of detention be communicated in a clear and intelligible form so the detenu can make an effective representation; a defective Tamil translation, especially for a person with limited education and Tamil-only understanding, was treated as invalid communication. The text also states that unexplained discrepancies in arrest details and in the sponsoring materials concerning recovery particulars must be clarified before subjective satisfaction is formed, because failure to do so shows lack of application of mind. On that reasoning, the detention order was held unsustainable and the detenu was directed to be released unless required in another case.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detenu was furnished with a proper and intelligible communication of the grounds of detention so as to enable an effective representation. (ii) Whether unexplained discrepancies in the sponsoring materials and arrest details vitiated the detention order for want of application of mind.

Issue (i): Whether the detenu was furnished with a proper and intelligible communication of the grounds of detention so as to enable an effective representation.

Analysis: The detenu had stated that he had studied only up to the second standard and knew only Tamil. Although a Tamil version of the detention materials was supplied, the translation was found to be incorrect and not a proper communication of the grounds. Under Article 22 of the Constitution of India, communication must convey clear knowledge of the basic facts forming the grounds of detention, and a defective translation defeats the right to make a purposeful and effective representation.

Conclusion: The communication of grounds was invalid and the detention order was infirm on this ground, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether unexplained discrepancies in the sponsoring materials and arrest details vitiated the detention order for want of application of mind.

Analysis: The materials placed before the detaining authority contained inconsistencies regarding the date of arrest and the place and manner of recovery of foreign currencies in the mahazars. When such discrepancies appear on the face of the record, the detaining authority is required to seek clarification before forming subjective satisfaction. Failure to do so indicated lack of application of mind.

Conclusion: The detention order stood vitiated by unexplained discrepancies and lack of application of mind, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention order could not survive judicial scrutiny and was set aside, resulting in the release of the detenu unless required in another case.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, grounds must be communicated in a language and form that enables an effective representation, and material discrepancies in the sponsoring records must be clarified before subjective satisfaction is recorded.

---