Preventive detention disclosure limits: only relied-on materials must be supplied, and immaterial omissions do not vitiate detention.

Article 22(5) requires supply of the basic facts and materials actually relied upon for preventive detention, but documents only casually referred to and not relied upon need not be furnished; a request by the detenu does not make such material mandatory. In preventive detention matters, reference to the Section 123 Customs Act presumption does not by itself invalidate the order where the grounds are read as a whole and the detention is supported by relevant material. The reasons for granting bail, and an assayer's certificate unrelated to the other detenu, were treated as immaterial to the subjective satisfaction underlying the detention orders.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether failure to supply documents merely referred to in the grounds of detention, but not relied upon, violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the detaining authority could base preventive detention on the presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962; (iii) whether non-consideration of the reasons in the bail order or non-supply of the assayer's certificate vitiated the detention orders.

Issue (i): Whether failure to supply documents merely referred to in the grounds of detention, but not relied upon, violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The constitutional requirement is that the detenu must receive the basic facts and materials relied upon for detention so that an effective representation can be made. Documents only casually or incidentally referred to in the grounds, and expressly not relied upon by the detaining authority, stand on a different footing from the materials forming the basis of detention. The Court accepted the principle that supply is mandatory only for relied-upon materials and held that a mere request by the detenu does not convert a non-relied-upon document into a required one.

Conclusion: The non-supply of documents merely referred to in passing did not violate Article 22(5) and did not vitiate the detention orders.

Issue (ii): Whether the detaining authority could base preventive detention on the presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The grounds of detention were read as a whole and were not construed as showing that Government had itself proceeded solely or mainly on the statutory presumption. The reference in the grounds was treated as a reference to the customs authorities' investigative basis and not as the sole foundation of the detention order. The Court further held that where the customs authorities were competent to invoke Section 123 and draw the presumption on the facts, the detaining authority was not barred from acting on the material so gathered.

Conclusion: The detention orders were not invalid on the ground that they were based on the presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (iii): Whether non-consideration of the reasons in the bail order or non-supply of the assayer's certificate vitiated the detention orders.

Analysis: The Court held that only the fact of release on bail and its terms were material for the preventive detention decision, not the detailed reasons for grant of bail. Likewise, the assayer's certificate relating to one detenu had no relevance to the detention of the other. These omissions were therefore not treated as having any bearing on the subjective satisfaction reached under the preventive detention law.

Conclusion: Neither the failure to examine the reasons for bail nor the non-supply of the assayer's certificate vitiated the detention orders.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the preventive detention orders failed on every substantive ground, and the writ petitions were dismissed with the detention orders sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Article 22(5), only those documents and materials actually relied upon in support of detention must be supplied, while documents merely referred to in passing need not be furnished; a detention order is not invalid if it is otherwise supported by relevant material and not founded solely on an impermissible presumption or on immaterial omissions.

---