N Criminal Appeal No 692 of 1983
From the Judgment and order dated 29th November 1983 of the Punjab  Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal Writ Petition No 516 of 1983
K Parasaran Attorney Genl
of India Bhagwant Singh Advocate General Punjab Gurmukh Singh Addl Adv
of Punjab DS Brar Asstt Adv
General GS Mann
Deputy Adv
General RD Aggarwal Govt
Advocate Miss A Subhashini and SK Bagga for the Appellants
Hardev Singh GS Grewal NS Das Behl RS Sodhi and JS Sandhawalia for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD C J
This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment dated November 29 1983 of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Writ Petition No 516 of 1983
That Writ Petition was filed by the respondent
Shri Jagdev Singh Talwandi to challenge an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate Ludhiana on October 3 53 1983 whereby the respondent was detained under section 3 3 read with section 3 2 of the 
The respondent was arrested in pursuance of the order of detention on the night between October 3 and 4 1983
He was first lodged in the Central Jail Patiala and from there he was taken to Ambala Baroda and Fathegarh UP
He filed a Writ Petition No463 of 1983 in the High Court to challenge his transfer and detention in a place far away from Ambala
He withdrew that petition on an assurance by the Government that he will be sent back to Ambala which the Government did on October 28
The grounds of detention were served on the respondent on October 6 1983
Those grounds show that the petitioner was detained on the basis of two speeches allegedly made by him one on July 8 1983 at Nihang Chhowani Baba Bakala District Amritsar and the other on September 20 1983 at Gurdwara Manji Sahib Amertsar
The grounds furnished to the petitioner read thus 1 That you in a Shaheedi Conference which was held from 11 am to 445 pm on 8 7 1983 at a place known as Nihang Chhowani  at Baba Bakala District Amritsar delivered a provocative speech to a Sikh gathering comprising about 20002200 Persons wherein you made a pointed reference to the incident dated 2 7 1983 of encounters between Nihangs and police at Baba Bakala and Taran Taran and stressed that in order to take revenge Sikhs would kill their Police four persons in lieu of the two Nihangs who had been killed in the said encounters
2 That while addressing a conference convened by the AISSF All India Sikh Students Federation on 20 9 1983 at Gurdwara Manji Sahib at Amritsar and attended by about 70008000 Sikh students you made a provocative speech wherein you said that all efforts made for the success of the Akali Morcha having failed it was still time to establish in Punjab a Government parallel to the Central Government and that you are in a position to form such a Government
You further exhorted that the establishment of Khalsa Raaj was the only solution to the problems
You also made a suggestion that the Government 54 will not accept any demand unless it was compelled by force to do so
This statement was also published in the various newspapers
A case FIR No 295 dated 27 9 1983 under section 124 A Indian Penal Code and section 13 of the  was registered at Police Station E  Division Amritsar which is under investigation
 The detaining authority stated in the last paragraph of the detention order that the respondent was being supplied the grounds of detention in Punjabi Gurmukhi script together with an English translation thereof and the supporting material forming the base of the grounds of detention
The supporting material by which is meant particulars of the grounds of detention was supplied to the respondent along with the grounds
These particulars consist of what is alleged to be a report of the speeches made by the respondent as recorded by the CID branch of the Punjab Police
The particulars of which an English translation was produced in the High Court at exhibit A1 read thus While speaking he said that on July 2 by bringing BSF Punjab Police and other police the unarmed Nihangs were fired at
There is no count as to how many of them were killed because no rollcall is taken of the Sikhs how many came and how many went
Further said that in Punjab hundreds of innocent Sikhs have been made the target of bullets
The Government has seen that the Sikhs go away after paying homage to the martyrs
Now we will have to decide as to what steps should be taken
The beloved army of Guru Nihangs have protected our dress and scriptures
It is true that some of them do commit mistakes also
They should be punished
We should see that we should kill as many police man as they kill ours otherwise they will slowly finish us
The new Inspector General of Police Mr Bhinder has stated that there are no extremist in Darbar Sahib
Further said that Congress wants to finish self respect among you
The Morcha which is launched by Akali Dal is to save the Sikh appearance
The awards have been given to police have they won any war Such a big attack upon the Nihangs was 55 on a pre planned programme
I say if they have killed our two men then you should kill four
If they come to kill me like this then I will die after killing them
I will never go back
Further said that if we get a judicial enquiry made it becomes meaningless
Nothing comes out of them
Now the judicial power has been given to Executive Officers
They may kill any body and they complete the enquiry and fill the file
 One of the grounds on which the order of detention was challenged in the High Court was that the State Government had failed to discharge its obligation under Article 22 5 of the Constitution by denying to the respondent an effective opportunity to make a representation to the Advisory Board against the order of detention
On being asked by the learned Judge to be more specific counsel for the respondent stated in the High Court that the State Government had not supplied to the respondent the supporting material on which Ground No 1 of the grounds of detention was based
Shri Hardev Singh who appears on behalf of the respondent adopted that contention by clarifying that the case of the respondent is that the relevant facts stated in the 1st ground of detention are totally absent from the supporting material supplied to him and therefore no reasonable person could have possibly passed the detention order on the basis of that material
The learned counsel urged that the order of detention was bad either because the detaining authority did not apply its mind to the material before it or in the alternative because there was some other material on the basis of which the detention order was passed and that material was not supplied to the respondent
For the purpose of focussing attention on the true nature of the respondent s contention and the prejudice said to have been caused to him the learned Judge of the High Court resorted to an ingenious device
He coined a conversation between the detaining authority and the detenu on the subject of their rival contentions in this case
That imaginary conversation may be reproduced at least for the merit of its novelty The detaining authority and the detenu come face to face Detaining authority After reading out Ground No 1 to the detenu  You had made that objectionable speech
56 Detenu Sir you seem to have been wrongly informed
I did not deliver any speech provocative or otherwise in a Shaheedi Conference at any such time date or place known as Nihang Chhowni  at Baba Bakal District Amritsar before a Sikh gathering of 20002200 as read out by you from ground No 1
Detaining authority Being cock sure of its facts takes out the CID report and puts it in the hands of the detenu Go through this CID report carefully as ground No 1 is based on that report
Detenu Sir this report does not refer to any speech being made by me in a Shaheedi Conference at a given time on a given date at a given place at Baba Bakala and before a Sikh gathering numbering 20002200
Detaining authority Taking back the report from the detenu s hand and subjecting it to a close scrutiny says somewhat wryly Yes you are right
The vital data which finds a mention in ground No 1 is missing from the supporting materail
Regaining quickly his repose the detaining authority continues Never mind if the given vital facts are missing from the supporting material
The supporting material at least reveals that you did utter the objectionable words somewhere sometime on some date and before some persons
Detenu Sir but that was not the speech on which you were going to act
You were going to take action against me on the basis of the speech mentioned in Ground No 1
Detaining authority Very well
So saying the detaining authority orders the detention of the detenu on two grounds by adding one more ground on the basis of another speech
The detaining authority serves the order of detention upon the detenu containing two grounds of detention
Simultaneously the detaining authority supplies the supporting material to the detenu 57 We must mention in order to put the record straight and in fairness to the learned Judge that he has narrated this conversation in a manner which is slightly different in so far as the form but not the substance is concerned
He has narrated the conversation in a running form
We have reproduced it like a dialogue in a play without adding anything of our own
Indeed we have taken care not to make any changes at all in the fictional conversation imagined by the learned Judge because the questions and answers which suggested themselves to him are in a sense the heart of the matter and in any case constitute the essence of his judgment
With respect to the learned Judge the basic error of his judgment lies in an easy unexamined assumption which he has made on a significant aspect of the matter
The detenu reminded the detaining authority that the CID report did not refer to any speech made by him in a Shaheedi Conference at a given time on a given date at a given place at Baba Bakala and before a Sikh gathering numbering 20002200
The detaining authority could have not possibly replied to that question by saying merely that the detenu was right
The detenu was right only formally or technically
That is because the CID report was supplied to him along with the grounds of detention with the express stipulation that it formed the base of the grounds of detention
The grounds mention every one of the details which need have been mentioned
The CID report was furnished to the detenu as forming the source of information leading to the conclusion that he had made a speech which necessitated his detention in the interests of public order
In the circumstances the grounds and the material furnished to the detenu have to be read together as is the material in the form of the CID report was a continuation of the grounds of detention
The unqualified reply given by the detaining authority to the detenu as imagined by the learned Judge betrays considerable unfamiliarity with the true legal position of the part on the detaining authority
Not only that but it shows that the detaining authority forgot that the particulars and the grounds were expressed to be interlinked the former being the base of the latter
The detaining authority should have explained to the detenu that though the particulars supplied to him did not mention those various details the particulars were supplied to him along with the grounds that it was expressly clarified contemporaneously that they related to the facts stated in the grounds that the two had to be read together and that the grounds contained the necessary facts with full details
The dialogue should 58 have ended there and the curtain rung down
Indeed the dialogue though carefully improvised by the learned Judge assumes what is to be decided namely whether the particulars furnished to the detenu suffer from the infirmity alleged
Nevertheless we will examine independently the argument of the respondent that he could not make an effective representation against the order of detention because the material supplied to him that is to say the CID report of the speech alleged to have been made by him at the Shaheedi Conference did not contain the material particulars which formed an important constituent of the grounds served upon him
His grievance is that the CID report of his speech does not mention that 1 the Conference was held on July 8 1983 2 it was held at Nihang Chhowani 3 it was held between the hours of 11
AM and 445 PM 4 it was a Shaheedi Conference 5 there was a gathering of 2000 to 2200 persons at the Conference and that 6 the speech made by him referred to an encounter at Baba Bakala and Tarn Taran
Article 22 5 of the Constitution around which the argument or the respondent revolves reads thus When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention the authority making the order shall as soon as may be communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order This Article has come up for consideration before this Court in a large number of cases
One of the earliest judgments of this Court on the interpretation of this Article is reported in Dr Ram krishna Bhardwaj vs The State of Delhi1 in which Patanjali Sastri CJ observed that under Article 22 5 of the Constitution the detenu has the right to be furnished with particulars of the grounds of his detention sufficient to enable him to make a representation which on being considered may give relief to him
Khudiram Das vs The State of West Bengal 2 is a judgment of a four Judge Bench of this Court in a case which arose under the Main 59 tenance of Internal Security Act 1971
One of us Bhagwati J who spoke for the Court surveyed the decisions bearing on the question of the obligation of the detaining authority and explained the nature of that obligation thus The basic facts and material particulars therefore which are the foundation of the order of detention will also be covered by grounds  within the contemplation of article 22 5 and section 8 and are required to be communicated to the detenu unless their disclosure is considered by the authority to be against the public interest
This has always been the view consistently taken by this Court in a series of decisions
 In Mohammad Yousuf Rather vs The State of Jammu  Kashmir1 Chinnappa Raddy J in a concurring judgment dealt with the implications of Article 22 5 of the Constitution thus The extent and the content of Article 22 5 have been the subject matter of repeated pronouncements by this Court Vide State of Bombay vs Atmaram 2 Dr Ramkrishna Bhardwaj vs State of Delhi 1 Shibbanlal Saxena vs State of Uttar Pradesh 3 Dwarkadas Bhatia vs State of Jammu  Kashmir 4
The interpretation of Article 22 consistently adopted by this Court is perhaps one of the outstanding contributions of the Court in the cause of Human Rights
The law is now well settled that a detenu has two rights under Article 22 5 of the Constitution 
1 To be informed as soon as may be of the grounds on which the order of detention is based that is the grounds which led to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and 2 to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention that is to be furnished with sufficient particulars to enable him to make a representation which on being considered may obtain relief to him In Khudiram Das vs The State of West Bengal2 it was observed that these two safeguards are the barest minimum which must be 60 observed before an executive authority can be permitted to preventively detain a person and thereby drown his right of personal liberty in the name of public good and social security
The question which we have to consider in the light of these decisions is whether sufficient particulars of the first ground of detention were furnished to the respondent so as to enable him to exercise effectively his constitutional right of making a representation against the order of detention
The obligation which rests on the detaining authority in this behalf admits no exception and its rigour cannot be relaxed under any circumstances
Having given our anxious consideration to this question it seems to us impossible to accept the view of the High Court that sufficient particulars of the first ground of detention where not furnished to the detenu so as to enable him to make an effective representation to the detaining authority that is to say a representation which on being accepted may give relief to him
This is not a case in which the ground of detention contains a bare or bald statement of the conclusion to which the detaining authority had come namely that it was necessary to pass the order of detention in order to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of public order
The first ground of detention with which we are concerned in this appeal mentions each and every one of the material particulars which the respondent was entitled to know in order to be able to make a full and effective representation against the order of detention
That ground mentions the place date and time of the alleged meeting
describes the occasion on which the meeting was held that is the Shaheedi Conference 
It mentions the approximate number of persons who were present at the meeting
Finally it mentions with particularity the various statements made by the respondent in his speech
These particulars mentioned in the grounds of detention comprise the entire gamut of facts which it was necessary for the respondent to know in order to make a well informed representation
The inadequacies from which the supplementary particulars furnished to the respondent along with ground No 1 suffer cannot affect that position because they do not introduce any obscurity in the facts stated in that ground or detract from the substance of the allegations mentioned in that ground
The argument of the respondent that he could not make an effective representation in behalf of ground No 1 because of the inadequacy of data in the particulars supplied to him has therefore to be rejected
However we are somewhat surprised that in a matter of this nature 61 the detaining authority should have adopted a somewhat casual and unimaginative approach to his task
We asked the learned Attorney General to produce before us the original version of the CID report of which an extract was supplied to the respondent by way of particulars
The original version contains almost every one of the material details pertaining to the meeting which are mentioned in ground No 1 The detaining authority needlessly applied his scissors excising the data which mentioned the date the place the time and the occasion of the meeting
It is this lack of thoughtfulness on the part of the detaining authority which furnished to the respondent the semblance of an argument
This Court has observed in numerous cases that while passing orders of detention great care must be brought to bear on their task by the detaining authorities
Preventive detention is a necessary evil but essentially an evil
Therefore deprivation of personal liberty if at all has to be on the strict terms of the Constitution
Nothing less
We will utter the of given warning yet once more in the hope that the voice of reason will be heard
Shri Hardev Singh contended in the alternative that the order of detention suffers from a total non application of mind because that order could not have been passed on the basis of the CID report which does not refer to any of the facts which are mentioned in the order of detention
It is undoubtedly true that the case of the appellants is that the order of detention is founded upon the report of the CID relating to the speech made by the respondent at the Shaheedi Conference
But the argument of the learned counsel overlooks that what was furnished to the respondent was an extract from the CID report and not the whole of it
However that has not caused any prejudice to the respondent since the grounds and the particulars were served upon him simultaneously and ground No 1 mentions every conceivable detail which it was necessary to mention in order to enable the respondent to make a proper representation against the order of detention
Evidently the detaining authority had before it the whole of the CID report on the basis of which it passed the order of detention
What was omitted from the extract furnished to the respondent was incorporated in ground No 1
It is therefore not possible to accept the argument that the order of detention is bad because the detaining authority did not apply its mind to the question as to whether there was material on the basis of which the respondent could be detained
It was further argued by the learned counsel that the detaining authority should have disclosed the evidence on the basis of which 62 the order of detention was passed because in the absence of knowledge of such evidence the respondent could not have made an effective representation against the order of detention
There is no substance in this contention
It is not the law that the evidence gathered by the detaining authority against the detenu must also be furnished to him
In Beni Madhob Shaw vs The State of West Bengal1 it was argued on behalf of the detenu that the details of the activities attributed to him were not disclosed to him as a result of which his right to make a representation to the Government was seriously prejudiced
It was held by this Court that since the activities forming the grounds of detention were disclosed to the detenu in clear terms and since such disclosure furnished adequate information to the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation against his detention the non disclosure of sources of information or the exact words of the information which formed the foundation of the order of detention could not be complained of
In Her Jas Dev Singh vs State of Punjab2 it was held that the conclusions drawn from the available facts constitute the grounds  and that the ground must be supplied to the detenu
The Court observed that the detenu is not entitled to know the evidence nor the source of the information What must be furnished to him are the grounds of detention and the particulars which would enable him to make out a case if he can for the consideration of the detaining authority
In Vakil Singh vs State of Jammu and Kashmir 3 it was held that since the basic facts as distinguished from factual details were incorporated in the material which was supplied to the detenu nothing more was required to be intimated to him in order to enable him to make an effective representation
These cases show that the detenu is not entitled to be informed of the source of information received against him or the evidence which may have been collected against him as for example the evidence corroborating that the report of the CID is true and correct
His right is to receive every material particular without which a full and 63 effective representation cannot be made
If the order of detention refers to or relies upon any document statement or other material copies thereof have of course to be supplied to the detenu as held by this Court in Ichhu Devi Choraria vs Union of India1 That question does not arise here since no such thing is referred to or relied upon in the first ground of detention
Indeed the furnishing of the CID report of which a truncated extract was furnished to the respondent was a superfluous exercise in the light of the facts of the instant case
Shri Hardev Singh relied upon the following passage in the judgment in Khudiram in support of his contention that the entire material which was before the detaining authority including the evidence gathered by him must be furnished to the detenu But if the grounds of detention are not communicated to him how can he make an effective representation  The opportunity of making a representation would be rendered illusory
The communication of the grounds of detention is therefore also intended to sub serve the purpose of enabling the detenu to make an effective representation
If this be the true reason for providing that the grounds on which the order of detention is made should be communicated to the detenu it is obvious that the grounds  mean all the basic facts and materials which have been taken into account by the detaining authority in making the order of detention and on which therefore the order of detention is based
 These observations cannot be construed as meaning that the evidence which was collected by the detaining authority must also be furnished to the detenu
As the very same paragraph of the judgment at page 839 of the report shows what was meant was that the basic facts and the material particulars which form the foundation of the order of detention must be furnished to the detenu since in the true sense they form part of the grounds of detention and without being apprised of the same the detenu cannot possibly make an effective representation
Shri Hardev Singh found serious fault with the fact that in answer to the writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court the counter affidavit was sworn by Shri KC Mahajan Deputy Secretary in the Home Department of the Government of Punjab and 64 not by the District Magistrate Ludhiana who had passed the order of detention
We are not prepared to dismiss this submission as of no relevance or importance
In matters of a routine nature if indeed there are any matters of a routine nature in the field of detention a counter affidavit may be sworn by a person who derives his knowledge from the record of the case
However in sensitive matters of the present nature the detaining authority ought to file his own affidavit in answer to the writ petition and place the relevant fats before the Court which the Court is legitimately entitled to know
In Shaik Hanif vs State of West Bengal the counter affidavit on behalf of the State of West Bengal was filed by the Deputy Secretary Home who verified the correctness of the averments in his affidavit on the basis of the facts contained in the official records
The District Magistrate who passed the order of detention did not file his affidavit and the explanation which he gave for not doing so was found to be unsatisfactory
Following an earlier judgment in Naranjan Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh it was held by this Court that in answer to a Rule issued in a habeas corpus petition it is incumbent upon the State to satisfy the Court that the detention of the petitioner is legal and is in conformity not only with the mandatory provisions of the Act under which the order of detention is passed but is also in accord with the requirements implicit in Article 225 of the Constitution
Sarkaria Jobserved on behalf of the Court Since the Court is precluded from testing the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority by objective standards it is all the more desirable that in response to the Rule Nisi the counter affidavit on behalf of the State should be sworn to by the District Magistrate or the authority on whose subjective satisfaction the detention order under s3 was passed
If for sufficient reason shown to the satisfaction of the Court the affidavit of the person who passed the order of detention under section 3 cannot be furnished the counter affidavit should be sworn by some responsible officer who personally dealt with or processed the case in the Government Secretariat or submitted it to the Minister or other Officer duly authorised under the rules of business framed by the Governor under Article 166 of the Constitution to pass orders on behalf of the Government in such matters
 65 After reviewing certain other decisions the Court held that the failure to furnish the counter affidavit of the District Magistrate who had passed the order of detention was an impropriety though in most of the cases it may not be of much consequence especially if there was no allegation of mala fides against the detaining authority
In the result the absence of the affidavit of the District Magistrate was held not to vitiate the order of detention
In this case too there are no allegations of mala fides against the District Magistrate and so his failure to file a counter affidavit will not vitiate the order of detention
We cannot however leave this subject without emphasising once again the importance of the detaining authority filing his own affidavit in cases of the present nature
There are degrees of impropriety and the line which divides grave impropriety from illegality is too thin to draw and even more so to judge
Conceivably there can be cases in which such impropriety arising out of the failure of the detaining authority in filing his own affidavit may vitiate the order of detention
Finally Shri Hardev Singh has contended that the respondent was unable to give proper instructions to his counsel when the matter was heard by the Advisory Board
Counsel says that the respondent was transferred from place to place and ultimately
he was produced before the Advisory Board an hour or so before the commencement of proceedings before the Board
That left no time for him to instruct his counsel
We do not see any substance in this grievance
The respondent was represented by an advocate before the Advisory Board
The learned advocate argued the case of the respondent along with the cases of two other detenus
It does not appear that any grievance was made by him that he was not able to obtain instructions from the respondent so as to be able to represent his case effectively before the Advisory Board
For these reasons we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court
As desired by counsel for the respondent we remand the matter to the High Court for disposal of the remaining contentions raised by the respondent in his Writ Petition
We would like to take this opportunity to point out that serious difficulties arise on account of the practice increasingly adopted by the High Courts of pronouncing the final order without a reasoned judgment
It is desirable that the final order which the High Court intends to pass should not be announced until a reasoned judgment 65 is ready for pronouncement
Suppose for example that a final order without a reasoned judgment is announced by the High Court that a house shall be demolished or that the custody of a child shall be handed over to one parent as against the order or that a person accused of a serious charge is acquitted or that a statute is unconstitutional or as in the instant case that a detenu be released from detention
If the object of passing such orders is to ensure speedy compliance with them that object is more often defeated by the aggrieved party filing a special leave petition in this Court against the order passed by the High Court
That places this Court in a predicament because without the benefit of the reasoning of the High Court it is difficult for this Court to allow the bare order to be implemented
The result inevitably is that the operation of the order passed by the High Court has to be stayed pending delivery of the reasoned judgment
It may be thought that such orders are passed by this Court and therefore there is no reason why the High Courts should not do the same
We would like to point out respectfully that the orders passed by this Court are final and no appeal lies against them
The Supreme Court is the final Court in the hierarchy of our courts
Besides orders without a reasoned judgment are passed by this Court very rarely under exceptional circumstances
Orders passed by the High Court are subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and other provisions of the concerned statutes
We thought it necessary to make these observations in order that a practice which is not very desirable and which achieves no useful purpose may not grow out of its present infancy


Summary:
The respondent challenged the order of his detention passed by the District Magistrate Ludhiana on October 31983 under section 3 3 read with section 3 2 of the  through Criminal Writ Petition No 516 of 1983
According to the petitioner respondent the grounds of detention served on him on Oct 6 1983 showing that he was detained on the basis of two speeches made by him on 871983 and 2091983 as recorded by the Crime Investigation Department of the Punjab Police contained certain particulars which were totally absent from the supporting material and therefore no reasonable person could have possible passed the detention order on the basis of such material
The High Court accepted the contention and made the rule absolute
Hence the appeal by the State after obtaining special leave
Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the High Court of Punjab the Court  HELD 11
While passing orders of detaining great care must be brought to bear on their task by the detaining authorities
Preventive detention is a 51 necessary evil but essentially an evil
Therefore deprivation of personal liberty if at all has to be on the strict terms of the Constitution
Nothing less
61 B C 12
In the instant case the detaining authority should not have adopted a somewhat casual and unimaginative approach to his task
The original version contains almost every one of the material details pertaining to the meeting which are mentioned in ground No1
The detaining authority needlessly applied his scissors excising the data which mentioned the date place the time and the occasion of the meeting
It is this lack of thoughtfulness on the part of the detaining authority which furnished to the respondent the semblance of an arguments
61 A B 2
The contention of the respondent that he could not make an effective representation in behalf of ground No1 because of the inadequacy of data in the supporting particulars supplied to him is incorrect
The inadequacies from which the supplementary particulars furnished to the respondent along with ground No1 suffer cannot affect that position because they do not introduce any obscurity in the facts stated in that ground or detract from the substance of the allegations mentioned in that ground
The first ground of detention mentions that the detenu was right only formally or technically
That is because the CID Report was supplied to him along with the grounds of detention with the express stipulation that it formed the base of the grounds of detention
 The grounds mention every one of the details which need have been mentioned
The CID report was furnished to the detenu as forming the source of information leading to the conclusion that he had made a speech which necessitated his detention in the interests of public order
In the circumstances the grounds and the material furnished to the detenu have to be read together as if the material in the form of the CID report was a continuation of the grounds of detention
57 C E 60 F H Dr Ramakrishna Bhardwaj vs The State of Delhi   Khudiram Das vs The State of West Bengal    838  840 Mohammed Yusuf Rowther vs The State of J  K   268 269 State of Bombay vs Atmaram  Shibbanlal Saxena vs State of Uttar Pradesh   Dwarkadas Bhatia vs State of Jammu  Kashmir   referred to
The detenu is not entitled to be informed of the source of information received against him or the evidence which may have been collected against him as for example the evidence corroborating that the report of the CID is true and correct
His right is to receive every material particular without which a full and effective representation cannot be made
If the order of the detention refers to or relies upon any document statement or other material copies thereof have of course to be supplied to the detenu
It is not the law that evidence gathered by the detaining authority against the detenu must also be furnished to him
62 G H 63 A B Beni Madhob Shaw vs The State of West Bengal AIR Har Jas Dev Singh vs State of Punjab   288 Vakil Vakil Singh vs State of Jammu  Kashmir AIR 1974 2337  2341 Icchu Devi Choraria vs Union of India   650 referred to
The failure to furnish the counter affidavit of the District Magistrate who had passed the order of detention was an impropriety though in most of the cases 52 it may not be of much consequence especially if there was no allegation of mala fides against the detaining authority
There are no allegations of mala fides against the District Magistrate and so his failure to file a counter affidavit will not vitiate the order of detention
65 A B Shaik Hanif vs State of West Bengal 19743 SCR 258 Naranjan Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 2215 referred to
The Court emphasised the importance of the detaining authority filing his own affidavit in cases of the present nature and observed that There are degrees of impropriety and the line which divides grave impropriety from illegality is too thin to draw and even more so to judge
Conceivably there can be cases in which such impropriety arising out of the failure of the detaining authority in filing his own affidavit may vitiate the order of detention 65 C D 5
It is desirable that the final order which the High Court intends to pass should not be announced until a reasoned judgment is ready for pronouncement
If the object of passing such orders is to ensure speedy compliance with them that object is more often defeated by the aggrieved party filing a special leave petition in this Court against the order passed by the High Court
That places this Court in a predicament because without the benefit of the reasoning of the High Court it is difficult for this Court to allow the bare order to be implemented
The result inevitably is that the operation of the order passed by the High Court has to be stayed pending delivery of the reasoned judgment
65 H 66 A C