Preventive detention safeguards require grounds and relied-upon documents in an understood language; non-supply can invalidate detention.

In preventive detention, Article 22(5) requires the grounds and relied-upon documents to be supplied in a language the detenu understands so that an effective representation can be made. Because the detenu was not furnished the material in an understood language and one relied-upon document was also not supplied, the detention was held invalid on this ground. A separate challenge that the detenu's representation was not timely placed before the Advisory Board was not accepted, as the record did not conclusively show that the Board proceeded without it. The detention therefore could not be sustained for non-compliance with constitutional safeguards.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention order was vitiated because the grounds and accompanying documents were not furnished in a language understood by the detenu and some relied-upon documents were not supplied; (ii) Whether the representation made by the detenu was not placed before the Advisory Board in time so as to invalidate the detention.

Issue (i): Whether the detention order was vitiated because the grounds and accompanying documents were not furnished in a language understood by the detenu and some relied-upon documents were not supplied.

Analysis: In preventive detention matters, the detenu must be communicated the grounds and supporting material in a language he understands so that he may make an effective representation. The safeguard under Article 22(5) requires strict compliance and is not satisfied merely because a family member or other person knows the language used. The record also showed that a relied-upon document had not been supplied to the detenu, which further weakened the validity of the detention.

Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the detenu. The detention order was invalid on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the representation made by the detenu was not placed before the Advisory Board in time so as to invalidate the detention.

Analysis: The materials before the Court did not conclusively establish that the representation was absent when the Advisory Board heard the matter. In the absence of clear proof that the Advisory Board proceeded without the representation, the challenge on this ground was not accepted.

Conclusion: This issue was decided against the detenu.

Final Conclusion: The detention could not be sustained because the constitutional safeguards governing preventive detention were not duly complied with, and the detenu was entitled to be released.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, the grounds of detention and relied-upon material must be furnished to the detenu in a language he understands, and strict compliance with Article 22(5) is mandatory for sustaining the detention.

---