Preventive detention safeguards require legible, translated relied upon documents to support valid detention and effective representation.

In preventive detention matters, relied upon documents must be legible and effectively communicated in a language understood by the detenu. Where unreadable documents formed part of the basis for detention, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was vitiated by non-application of mind. The Court also held that supplying documents in a language not understood by the detenu, without an effective translation, denied the constitutional right to make a meaningful representation under Article 22(5). The detention order was therefore unsustainable and quashed, with release directed unless required in another case.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether supply of illegible relied upon documents vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority and invalidated the detention order; (ii) Whether non-supply of relied upon documents in a language understood by the detenu deprived him of an effective representation and rendered the detention illegal.

Issue (i): Whether supply of illegible relied upon documents vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority and invalidated the detention order

Analysis: Preventive detention requires strict constitutional compliance, and the documents that form the basis of the detention must be legible and usable by the detenu. Where the record showed that several relied upon documents were illegible, the Court held that such material could not validly inform the Detaining Authority's subjective satisfaction. Reliance on unreadable documents was treated as equivalent to non-consideration of the material itself, which amounted to non-application of mind.

Conclusion: Decided in favour of the detenu. The illegible relied upon documents vitiated the subjective satisfaction and the detention order.

Issue (ii): Whether non-supply of relied upon documents in a language understood by the detenu deprived him of an effective representation and rendered the detention illegal

Analysis: Article 22(5) requires that the grounds of detention and the relied upon documents be communicated effectively so that the detenu can make a meaningful representation. The Court held that documents in Chinese, without an effective translation into a language understood by the detenu, did not satisfy this constitutional mandate. The Court also held that in the case of relied upon documents, the defect is not cured by insisting upon proof of prejudice, because the right to effective representation is itself infringed by the non-supply of understandable copies.

Conclusion: Decided in favour of the detenu. Non-supply of translated and legible relied upon documents violated the constitutional right to effective representation and rendered the detention illegal.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was held to be unsustainable and was quashed, with the detenu directed to be released forthwith unless required in some other case.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, relied upon documents must be supplied in a legible form and in a language understood by the detenu, because failure to do so violates Article 22(5) and vitiates the subjective satisfaction underpinning the detention.

---