Preventive detention requires clear grounds; disjunctive wording can create uncertainty, impair representation, and invalidate the order.

Preventive detention under COFEPOSA must be exercised strictly within the statutory framework and constitutional safeguards, because the power directly affects personal liberty. Where the detaining authority records satisfaction in disjunctive terms covering smuggling, abetting smuggling, and transporting, concealing or keeping smuggled goods, the wording may create uncertainty about the exact prejudicial activity relied on. That uncertainty can hinder an effective representation by the detenu and indicate non-application of mind. On that basis, the detention order was treated as unsustainable and quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was vitiated because the detaining authority used disjunctive expressions while recording satisfaction as to the grounds of detention, thereby causing uncertainty about the exact prejudicial activity sought to be prevented.

Analysis: Preventive detention is an extraordinary power that trenches upon personal liberty and must therefore be exercised strictly within the statutory framework and the constitutional safeguards under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 separately enumerates distinct prejudicial activities in disjunctive form. Where the order states that detention is necessary to prevent a person from smuggling goods, abetting smuggling, and engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods, the language leaves uncertainty as to which precise activity formed the basis of the subjective satisfaction. Such uncertainty affects the detenu's ability to make an effective representation and indicates non-application of mind.

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

---