Preventive detention safeguards require independent consideration of representation and notice of Central Government remedy; detention set aside.

Preventive detention under the 1988 Act requires the appropriate Government to independently consider the detenue's representation on its own merits; mechanical approval based only on the Advisory Board's opinion vitiates the confirmation order. The Court also held that, where the statute empowers the Central Government to revoke or modify a State detention order, the detenue must be apprised of that right to make an effective representation; failure to do so breaches Article 22(5). On both grounds, the confirmation order and consequential detention were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confirmation order was vitiated for failure to independently consider the detenue's representation apart from the Advisory Board's opinion; (ii) Whether the detention was vitiated for not apprising the detenue of his right to make a representation to the Central Government.

Issue (i): Whether the confirmation order was vitiated for failure to independently consider the detenue's representation apart from the Advisory Board's opinion

Analysis: The power to confirm detention under Section 9(f) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 is independent of the Advisory Board's opinion. The representation of a detenue must be considered by the appropriate Government on its own merits and not merely through the lens of the Advisory Board's recommendation. The record showed that the confirmation was approved mechanically on the basis of the Advisory Board's report, without any independent examination of the representation.

Conclusion: The confirmation order was invalid for non-consideration of the representation independently, and this issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the detention was vitiated for not apprising the detenue of his right to make a representation to the Central Government

Analysis: Section 12(1)(b) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 empowers the Central Government to revoke or modify a State detention order. In preventive detention matters, the detenue must be afforded a real and effective opportunity to seek such revocation, which necessarily requires communication of that right. The omission to apprise the detenue of this remedy impaired the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The detention was vitiated on this ground as well, and this issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The impugned confirmation order and the consequential detention order were set aside for breach of constitutional and statutory safeguards governing preventive detention.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, the appropriate Government must independently consider the detenue's representation, uninfluenced by the Advisory Board's opinion, and the detenue must be effectively informed of the remedy of representation to the Central Government where the statute provides for revocation by that authority.

---