Preventive detention severability under COFEPOSA upheld where multiple independent grounds survived despite non-supply objections.

In preventive detention under COFEPOSA, "grounds" means the primary facts forming the basis of subjective satisfaction, and severability under Section 5A applies where the detention order rests on distinct independent activities rather than one indivisible ground. The Court held that the record disclosed multiple separate grounds, so invalidity of one ground would not vitiate the entire order if others survived. It also held that non-supply of some relied upon documents and the resulting Article 22(5) complaint did not bar reliance on Section 5A where independent grounds remained valid. The detention order was sustained on the surviving grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention order was founded on multiple independent grounds so as to attract the principle of severability under Section 5A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. (ii) Whether non-supply of certain relied upon documents and the resulting infraction of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India disabled the respondents from invoking Section 5A of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the detention order was founded on multiple independent grounds so as to attract the principle of severability under Section 5A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

Analysis: The expression "grounds" in preventive detention law means the primary or basic facts on which the subjective satisfaction is based, and not merely subsidiary facts or evidentiary details. The Court distinguished a single composite ground from several independent grounds, and held that where the detention order rests on distinct factual activities, each constituting a separate basis for detention, the doctrine of severability applies. On the facts, the detention order and the supporting material disclosed several separate activities and instances, not merely one indivisible ground.

Conclusion: The detention order was based on multiple grounds, and the principle of severability under Section 5A was applicable.

Issue (ii): Whether non-supply of certain relied upon documents and the resulting infraction of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India disabled the respondents from invoking Section 5A of the Act.

Analysis: Article 22(5) requires communication of the grounds of detention and an opportunity to make a representation. Non-supply of material relied upon may invalidate the particular ground to which it relates, but it does not automatically vitiate the entire detention order where other independent grounds survive. The Court held that the constitutional challenge to the non-supplied material did not exclude the operation of Section 5A, which had already been upheld in principle.

Conclusion: Section 5A remained available notwithstanding the Article 22(5) complaint, and the detention order was not invalidated on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was sustained on surviving independent grounds, and both the appeal and the connected writ petition were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, where the order is founded on more than one independent ground, the invalidity or non-communication of one ground does not vitiate the entire order if the remaining grounds are sufficient to sustain detention.

---