Preventive detention grounds must be clear and complete; vague or incomplete reasons vitiate the order for non-application of mind.

A preventive detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was held unsustainable where the supplied grounds were vague, incomplete and inconclusive. The Bombay High Court noted that the detention material did not clearly disclose the factual basis of the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction and suggested that only some reasons had been furnished. That deficiency showed non-application of mind and prevented an effective representation by the detenu, rendering the order liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was liable to be quashed for non-application of mind and vagueness in the grounds of detention.

Analysis: The detention order was passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The grounds supplied to the detenu were found to be deficient because they used vague and inconclusive language, indicated that only some reasons had been disclosed, and did not set out the factual basis of subjective satisfaction with sufficient clarity. Such drafting prevented an effective representation and showed serious infirmity in the decision-making process.

Conclusion: The detention order was unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order must disclose clear and complete grounds reflecting real application of mind and the factual basis of subjective satisfaction; vague or incomplete grounds vitiate the order.

---