Preventive detention requires real bail-risk material, effective communication in understood language, and independent grounds of detention.

SC held that preventive detention of persons already in custody requires cogent material showing a real possibility of release on bail and a likelihood of prejudicial conduct thereafter; bare assumptions are insufficient, so the detention orders failed on that ground. It further held that Article 22(5) demands effective communication of the grounds of detention in a language the detenu understands; supplying papers in English to detenus unfamiliar with that language did not satisfy the constitutional requirement, so the detention was invalid. The Court also held that the detaining authority must record its own independent grounds and apply its mind, and mere adoption of police proposals vitiates the order. The detention orders were quashed and release directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the preventive detention orders could be sustained when the detenus were already in custody and there was no cogent material showing a real possibility of their release on bail; (ii) Whether service of the detention papers in a language not understood by the detenus satisfied the constitutional requirement of communication of the grounds of detention; (iii) Whether the detention orders were vitiated because the detaining authority did not formulate separate grounds of detention and merely acted on the police proposals.

Issue (i): Whether the preventive detention orders could be sustained when the detenus were already in custody and there was no cogent material showing a real possibility of their release on bail.

Analysis: Preventive detention of a person already in custody is permissible only where the detaining authority is aware of the custody and has reliable material to conclude that there is a real possibility of release on bail, and that upon release the person is likely to indulge in prejudicial activity again. The material must be cogent and cannot rest on conjecture or a bare assertion. Here, neither detenu had applied for bail when the detention orders were passed, and the assumption that they would be released on bail was unsupported by record.

Conclusion: The detention orders could not be sustained on this ground and were invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether service of the detention papers in a language not understood by the detenus satisfied the constitutional requirement of communication of the grounds of detention.

Analysis: The right under Article 22(5) requires effective communication of the grounds of detention so that the detenu can make a meaningful representation. Mere oral explanation is not enough where the detenu is not conversant with the language in which the order and documents are supplied. The record showed that the detenus did not know English, the language used in the detention orders and supporting materials, and the voluminous papers could not realistically be assimilated through oral translation alone.

Conclusion: The constitutional requirement of communication was not complied with, rendering the detention unsustainable.

Issue (iii): Whether the detention orders were vitiated because the detaining authority did not formulate separate grounds of detention and merely acted on the police proposals.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires the detaining authority to record its own satisfaction on the basis of separate grounds of detention. A cryptic order reflecting only examination of the police proposal and supporting documents does not amount to an independent application of mind. The orders here contained no separate grounds and merely adopted the proposals, which was inconsistent with the preventive detention framework.

Conclusion: The orders were vitiated for want of independent grounds and proper application of mind.

Final Conclusion: The impugned detention orders and their continuations were quashed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the detenus were directed to be released forthwith unless required in some other case.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order against a person already in custody is valid only if the detaining authority has cogent material showing a real possibility of release on bail and likely prejudicial conduct thereafter, and the detenu must be effectively communicated the grounds in a language he or she can understand; independent grounds of detention and application of mind by the detaining authority are essential.

---