Preventive detention survives where no prejudice to effective representation is shown despite blurred papers, delay, and untranslated material.

Illegibility of some detention papers did not invalidate preventive detention where the detenu still knew the factual basis and could make an effective representation under Article 22(5). Delay between the incident and the detention order did not vitiate the order because the Court accepted the administrative explanation and treated proximity as only a subsidiary test. Retention of the detenu's passport did not bar detention, and the authority could infer continuation of unlawful foreign exchange activity. Non-supply of Hindi translations and the joint remand application also caused no prejudice, so the detention was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether illegible or blurred documents supplied with the grounds of detention deprived the detenu of an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the interval between the incident and the detention order vitiated the detention for want of nexus or failure of subjective satisfaction. (iii) Whether retention of the detenu's passport prevented recourse to detention on the ground that the alleged prejudicial activity could not be repeated. (iv) Whether non-supply of Hindi translations invalidated the detention for denial of an effective representation. (v) Whether the joint remand application created a misleading impression that the detenu was acting in conspiracy with the other accused.

Issue (i): Whether illegible or blurred documents supplied with the grounds of detention deprived the detenu of an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The detention relied on the detenu's visits to Singapore, but the material before the detaining authority also included the detenu's own statement under Section 39 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, which disclosed those visits. The illegibility of certain passport endorsements did not materially prevent the detenu from knowing the factual basis of the order or from challenging it effectively.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the detention was not invalidated on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the interval between the incident and the detention order vitiated the detention for want of nexus or failure of subjective satisfaction.

Analysis: The Court accepted the explanation for the sequence of processing, including movement of the proposal through the enforcement machinery and screening committee. The proximity test is only a subsidiary aid, and no rigid time rule can be applied mechanically. On the facts, the delay did not show absence of nexus or lack of subjective satisfaction.

Conclusion: The detention was held not to be vitiated by delay.

Issue (iii): Whether retention of the detenu's passport prevented recourse to detention on the ground that the alleged prejudicial activity could not be repeated.

Analysis: Retention of the passport did not, by itself, bar preventive detention. The Court held that it was unnecessary to show likelihood of repetition in the identical form, and the detaining authority could reasonably infer continuation of illegal foreign exchange activity if the detenu remained at large.

Conclusion: The detention order was upheld notwithstanding retention of the passport.

Issue (iv): Whether non-supply of Hindi translations invalidated the detention for denial of an effective representation.

Analysis: The detenu had stated that he could read and write English, Hindi, and Sindhi, and the Court was satisfied that he understood English well enough. The omission to serve Hindi translations did not impair the right to make an effective representation.

Conclusion: The challenge failed on this ground.

Issue (v): Whether the joint remand application created a misleading impression that the detenu was acting in conspiracy with the other accused.

Analysis: The remand application, though joint, specifically mentioned the role of each accused and their separate visits. The Court found no basis for the contention that it conveyed an incorrect impression of a concerted conspiracy among all the accused.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was sustained as none of the grounds established illegality, infirmity, or denial of the detenu's right to effective representation.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, illegibility of some supplied documents, delay not shown to break nexus, retention of a passport, or non-supply of a translation will not vitiate detention unless prejudice to the detenu's effective representation or absence of reasonable subjective satisfaction is established on the facts.

---