Preventive detention invalidated for illegible relied upon documents; severability could not cure the defect in subjective satisfaction.

Preventive detention is invalid where the detaining authority relies on illegible, blank, or missing documents that form the basis of subjective satisfaction, because the detenu is denied an effective opportunity to make a representation; the detention order was therefore unsustainable. Section 5-A of the COFEPOSA Act did not cure the defect, as severability cannot save an order when the foundational satisfaction itself is vitiated by improper placement of relied upon material. Parity also applied because the detenu stood on the same factual footing as detenus in the earlier connected matter, leading to the same result and release unless required in another case.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether supply of illegible relied upon documents vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and rendered the detention order invalid; (ii) whether Section 5-A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 saved the detention order despite the defect; (iii) whether the detenu was similarly placed as the detenus in the earlier connected matter so as to attract parity.

Issue (i): Whether supply of illegible relied upon documents vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and rendered the detention order invalid.

Analysis: The right of a detenu to make an effective representation requires supply of all relied upon and relevant documents in a legible form. Where documents forming the basis of detention are illegible, blank, or not supplied at all, the detenu is deprived of a meaningful opportunity to challenge the detention. The material on record showed that several relied upon documents were admitted to be illegible or blank, and those documents had been considered in forming the detention decision. Such defect amounted to non-application of mind and vitiated the subjective satisfaction.

Conclusion: This issue was answered in favour of the detenu.

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

Analysis: The protection of severability under Section 5-A applies only where distinct grounds are independently sustainable. It does not cure a detention order where the foundational subjective satisfaction itself is invalid because relied upon material was not properly placed before the detaining authority in legible form. Since the defect went to the root of the decision-making process, the grounds could not be treated as severable for the purpose of preserving the order.

Conclusion: This issue was answered against the respondents.

Issue (iii): Whether the detenu was similarly placed as the detenus in the earlier connected matter so as to attract parity.

Analysis: The detention arose from the same investigation, the same factual matrix, and the same set of relied upon documents. The respondents themselves accepted that the detenu stood on the same footing as the detenus in the earlier matter. In those circumstances, the principle of parity applied.

Conclusion: This issue was answered in favour of the detenu.

Final Conclusion: The detention order could not be sustained and was set aside, resulting in the release of the detenu unless required in any other case.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention is invalid where the detaining authority relies upon illegible or missing documents that are integral to subjective satisfaction, because such defect denies the detenu an effective representation and cannot be cured by severability.

---