Preventive detention order struck down for mechanical drafting, while non-communication of the Advisory Board's opinion was not fatal.

In preventive detention matters, the Advisory Board's confidential opinion need not be communicated to the detenu because the statute requires only that it be submitted to the appropriate Government, and confirmation of detention sufficiently informs the detenu that the opinion was adverse. However, a detention order made without proper application of mind, including mechanical reproduction of statutory language without appreciating the distinction between the relevant enactments, is unsustainable. The non-communication objection was rejected, while the defect of mechanical drafting rendered the detention order invalid and liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether failure to communicate the Advisory Board's opinion to the detenu invalidated the detention; (ii) Whether the detention order was vitiated for want of application of mind and as being a mechanical reproduction of the statutory language.

Issue (i): Whether failure to communicate the Advisory Board's opinion to the detenu invalidated the detention.

Analysis: The Advisory Board under the preventive detention statute functions in an advisory capacity and is required to submit its report to the appropriate Government. The statute did not impose any obligation on the Board to communicate its opinion to the detenu. The proceedings and report of the Board were also declared confidential except for the specification of its opinion. Once the State Government confirmed the detention and communicated that confirmation, the detenu was sufficiently informed that the report had gone against him.

Conclusion: The omission to communicate the Advisory Board's opinion did not invalidate the detention and the contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the detention order was vitiated for want of application of mind and as being a mechanical reproduction of the statutory language.

Analysis: The wording of the detention order showed that the detaining authority used the disjunctive form found in the statute without appreciating the distinction between the relevant enactments. The order was therefore treated as having been made mechanically and without proper application of mind, and the case was held to be directly governed by the earlier decision relied upon by the Court.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid for want of application of mind and was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and the impugned detention order was quashed, resulting in the petitioner's release.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, non-communication of an Advisory Board's confidential opinion does not by itself invalidate detention, but an order made without proper application of mind and by mechanically reproducing statutory language is unsustainable.

---