Effective communication of detention grounds and Article 22(5) compliance upheld where the detenue refused service and knew his rights.

The Supreme Court held that a detention order under COFEPOSA was not vitiated where the grounds of detention and relied-upon material had been effectively communicated in a language understood by the detenue, and the right to make a representation under Article 22(5) was meaningfully afforded. On the facts, the authorities had promptly attempted service, supplied translated documents, prepared a panchnama before independent witnesses, and recorded the detenue's refusal to receive the papers, despite his awareness of the documents and his representation rights. The challenge was found to rest on suppression and false premises, so the detention order was upheld and no relief was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was vitiated for -service of the grounds of detention and denial of the detenue's right to make a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Article 22(5) requires the detaining authority to communicate the grounds of detention effectively and in a language understood by the detenue, and also to afford the earliest opportunity to make a representation. The grounds and relied-upon material must convey sufficient knowledge of the basis of detention, while the right to representation must be meaningfully informed. On the facts, the Court found that the authorities had attempted service promptly, supplied translated documents, prepared a panchnama in the presence of independent witnesses, and that the detenue had refused to receive the documents, signed the panchnama, and even recorded that refusal. The Court further found that the detenue had read the documents and was aware of his right to make a representation. The challenge was held to rest on suppression and an attempt to secure relief on false premises.

Conclusion: The detention order was not vitiated and the challenge to it failed. The compliance with Article 22(5) was upheld, and the detenue was held not entitled to relief.

---