Non-supply of relied-upon past-case material vitiates preventive detention under Article 22(5).

The Petitioner challenged a preventive detention order dated 13 October 2025.

The grounds of detention referred to four registered offences from 2022–2023 and two preventive actions, as well as a 2025 registered offence and two in-camera statements.

The Petitioner argued that he had not been supplied with documents relating to the earlier offences and preventive actions; the State submitted that the earlier history was merely introductory and was not relied upon.

The Court considered whether the material omitted from the documents supplied to the Petitioner affected his ability to make an effective representation.

1. Whether the Detaining Authority relied on the past offences and preventive actions set out in paragraph 3 of the grounds, in addition to the 2025 offence and in-camera statements in paragraphs 4 and 5

2. Whether failure to supply documents relating to the earlier offences and preventive actions impaired the Petitioner’s right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution

Article 22(5) of the Constitution protects a detained person’s right to be informed of the grounds of detention and to have the earliest effective opportunity to make a representation.

Where material is relied upon in forming the subjective satisfaction for detention, failure to supply that material may frustrate that opportunity and render the detention order unsustainable.

The order in this case was made under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities law, identified in the record as MPDA; the judgment cites no particular statutory provision or precedent as the basis for its decision.

Although the State characterized the earlier history as introductory, the Court read paragraphs 3 and 4 of the grounds together and concluded that the Detaining Authority had relied both on the past history in paragraph 3 and on the more recent material in paragraphs 4 and 5.

Because the Petitioner had not been supplied with documents relating to the earlier offences and preventive actions, the omission created uncertainty about the material underlying the detention and prevented an effective representation, violating Article 22(5).

It set aside the detention order dated 13 October 2025 and directed the Petitioner’s release forthwith, unless required in another case; the Rule was made absolute and the petition disposed of.