Preventive detention fails when unreadable documents block an effective representation, while statutory delay alone may not vitiate detention.

Article 22(5) requires prompt consideration of a detenue's representation, but the obligations of the detaining authority and the Government differ under COFEPOSA. The Court held there was no real conflict between the earlier preventive detention decisions, so no reference to a larger Bench was needed, and a 60-day delay in Government consideration did not by itself vitiate detention where the statutory scheme was followed. However, supplying illegible Chinese documents meant the detenue could not make an effective representation, and that defect was treated as fatal. The detention order was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether there exists an incongruity between the Pankaj Kumar case and the Abdullah Kunhi case and, if such a friction exists, whether the point of law should be referred to a larger Bench; (ii) whether the impugned detention order could be quashed on the ground of 60-day delay in consideration of the representation; (iii) whether illegible documents in Chinese supplied to the detenue were sufficient to quash the detention order.

Issue (i): Whether there exists an incongruity between the Pankaj Kumar case and the Abdullah Kunhi case and, if such a friction exists, whether the point of law should be referred to a larger Bench.

Analysis: The constitutional right under Article 22(5) requires that a detenue's representation be considered at the earliest opportunity. The earlier decisions on preventive detention were read in the light of the statutory scheme governing the detaining authority and the Government. Under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, the Government was the detaining authority after approval, whereas under the COFEPOSA Act, 1974, the specially empowered officer and the Central Government are distinct authorities. The rule that the detaining authority must act independently applies to the authority that passed the detention order, while the rule that the Government may await the Advisory Board applies to the Government under COFEPOSA. The two lines of authority were held to operate in different spheres and therefore no real conflict arose.

Conclusion: There is no incongruity requiring reference to a larger Bench, and the issue is answered against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned detention order could be quashed on the ground of 60-day delay in consideration of the representation.

Analysis: The detaining authority decided the representation expeditiously, while the Central Government awaited the Advisory Board's decision. That course was held to be consistent with the COFEPOSA framework and with the respective obligations of the two authorities. Since the Government's consideration followed the statutory scheme, the delay by itself did not vitiate the detention order.

Conclusion: The detention order could not be quashed on the ground of 60-day delay, and the issue is decided against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether illegible documents in Chinese supplied to the detenue were sufficient to quash the detention order.

Analysis: In preventive detention matters, the grounds and supporting material must be supplied in a language understood by the detenue so that an effective representation can be made. Supplying illegible or foreign-language documents impairs the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5). The Court also applied the principle of parity because a similarly placed co-detenue had already obtained relief on the same ground. On these facts, the defect was treated as fatal.

Conclusion: The illegible Chinese documents were sufficient to vitiate the detention order, and the issue is decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was set aside and the appeal was allowed because the supply of unintelligible detention material vitiated the preventive detention, while the other grounds were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, representations must be considered independently and with expedition in accordance with the distinct statutory roles of the detaining authority and the Government, and a detention order is vitiated where the detenue is supplied with unreadable or incomprehensible grounds that prevent an effective representation.

---