Preventive detention safeguards require intelligible supply of relied upon material and independent consideration of representation before confirmation.

Preventive detention requires the relied upon material to be supplied in a language understood by the detenue and in legible form so that an effective representation can be made; non-compliance with this communication duty vitiates detention. The detenue's representation must also receive independent consideration by the appropriate Government or detaining authority before confirmation of detention, and consideration only by the Advisory Board is insufficient. Where these constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5) are not observed, the detention cannot be sustained and immediate release follows.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether failure to furnish translated and legible copies of relied upon material vitiated the detention order; (ii) Whether non-consideration of the detenue's representation by the Government or detaining authority before confirmation of detention violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether failure to furnish translated and legible copies of relied upon material vitiated the detention order.

Analysis: The grounds of detention must contain the basic facts and relied upon materials in a manner intelligible to the detenue so as to enable an effective representation. Documents actually relied upon, including material bearing on bail and acquittal, must be supplied in a language understood by the detenue and in legible form. Mere casual or passing reference to a document does not by itself require supply, but where the detention order is unclear as to what was relied upon, the duty to communicate the basis of detention is not properly discharged.

Conclusion: The requirement of furnishing relied upon material in translated and legible form was not satisfactorily complied with in the manner mandated by law.

Issue (ii): Whether non-consideration of the detenue's representation by the Government or detaining authority before confirmation of detention violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: A detenue's representation must receive independent and timely consideration by the appropriate Government or detaining authority, and that obligation is not displaced by consideration by the Advisory Board. The constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) requires that the representation be considered at least once before final confirmation, and failure to do so renders the detention illegal. In the present case, the representations were considered only by the Advisory Board and not by the Government or detaining authority at the relevant stage.

Conclusion: The detention was vitiated for non-consideration of the representation in breach of Article 22(5).

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention order could not be sustained because the constitutional safeguards governing communication of material and consideration of representation were not duly observed, and the detenue was entitled to immediate release.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, the detaining authority must communicate the relied upon materials in a form intelligible to the detenue, and the detenue's representation must be independently considered by the appropriate Government or detaining authority before confirmation; non-compliance with these safeguards invalidates the detention.

---