Preventive detention safeguards require supply of relied-upon material and prompt consideration of representation under Article 22(5).

In preventive detention, all material relied upon for the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction must be supplied to the detenu so that an effective representation can be made under Article 22(5); statements of a material witness forming an important link in the detention grounds cannot be treated as mere casual references, and non-supply vitiates the detention. The constitutional safeguard also requires prompt transmission and speedy disposal of the detenu's representation, and unexplained administrative delay in forwarding or deciding it independently infringes Article 22(5). The article states that detention becomes illegal where these safeguards are denied.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-supply of the statements of a material witness relied upon in the detention grounds violated the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the failure to promptly transmit and decide the detenu's representation vitiated the detention on the ground of delay under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether non-supply of the statements of a material witness relied upon in the detention grounds violated the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The detention order was founded on a chain of factual materials, and the statements of the witness were not a mere passing reference but formed an important link in the subjective satisfaction recorded for preventive detention. The governing principle is that all documents relied upon for reaching detention satisfaction must be furnished to enable an effective representation. Documents merely casually referred to need not be supplied, but relied upon material stands on a different footing. The Court found that the witness statements were relied upon material and their non-supply impaired the detenu's constitutional right.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant. The detention was vitiated by non-supply of relied upon material.

Issue (ii): Whether the failure to promptly transmit and decide the detenu's representation vitiated the detention on the ground of delay under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The constitutional guarantee requires the earliest opportunity to make a representation and its prompt consideration. The representation was forwarded in a casual manner, did not reach the appropriate authorities for a substantial period, and was ultimately decided after a long delay without any convincing explanation. The obligation to consider a representation speedily is independent of the Advisory Board process, and administrative slackness in transmission or disposal infringes the safeguard under Article 22(5).

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant. The unexplained delay in transmission and disposal of the representation independently vitiated the detention.

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention order could not be sustained because the detenu was denied the constitutional safeguards attached to effective representation and prompt consideration of representation.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, every document that forms the basis of the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction must be supplied to the detenu, and any unexplained delay in transmitting or deciding a representation under Article 22(5) renders the detention illegal.

---