Preventive detention and effective representation fail when relied-upon documents are illegible, vitiating subjective satisfaction and detention orders.

In preventive detention matters, failure to supply relied upon documents in legible form, or non-supply of relevant material, deprives the detenus of an effective opportunity to make a meaningful representation and violates Article 22(5). The Court treated reliance on illegible material as equivalent to non-placement of that material before the detaining authority, holding that the subjective satisfaction was vitiated for non-application of mind. Section 5A could not save the detention orders because severability does not cure a defect that goes to the root of the formation of subjective satisfaction. The detention orders were quashed and release was directed unless required in another case.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-supply of certain relied upon documents and supply of illegible relied upon documents vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and invalidated the detention orders for non-application of mind. (ii) Whether Section 5A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 saved the detention orders.

Issue (i): Whether non-supply of certain relied upon documents and supply of illegible relied upon documents vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and invalidated the detention orders for non-application of mind.

Analysis: The detention orders were founded on material that included voluminous relied upon documents, several of which were admittedly illegible both in the detention file and in the copies supplied to the detenus. The detenus were thereby deprived of an effective opportunity to make a meaningful representation. Where relevant material having a direct bearing on the decision is not effectively placed before the detaining authority, the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) is not met. The court treated reliance on illegible documents as equivalent to non-placement of the material, and held that the subjective satisfaction stood vitiated by non-application of mind.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the detenus and against the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 5A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 saved the detention orders.

Analysis: The severability principle under Section 5A applies where one of several independent grounds fails, but it does not cure an order that is fundamentally tainted at the stage of formation of subjective satisfaction. Since the impugned orders were held to be vitiated at the threshold for non-application of mind and reliance on illegible material, the defect went to the root of the detention and could not be salvaged by severance of grounds.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the detenus and against the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The detention orders were quashed because the constitutional and statutory safeguards governing preventive detention were not satisfied, and the detenus were directed to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, where relevant relied upon documents are illegible or not effectively supplied, the resulting denial of an effective representation vitiates the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction for non-application of mind, and such an order cannot be cured by severability under Section 5A.

---