Facts Summary

 April 30 – Order of detention served, grounds also served. Writ Petition filed.
 September 9 – Petition dismissed
 November 21 – Fresh petition on “additional grounds”
 Petitioner on constructive res judicata:
o This is on fresh grounds which could not for good reasons be taken in earlier
petition. So, no doctrine of estoppel or constructive res judicata.
o Preventive detention illegally continued is a continuous wrong and furnishes a
continuous cause of action to challenge on fresh grounds.
 U.K. position and Indian judgements discussed.
 2 divergent positions emerge:
o First, CRJ confined to civil actions and civil proceedings. Principle of public
policy inapplicable to illegal detention. Does not bar subsequent habeas corpus
petition on fresh grounds.
o Second, CRJ applies here.
 Fresh grounds:
o First:
 Respondents failed to supply all documents which were relied upon
when passing detention order.
 Detaining authority purported to give him 510 documents.
 Later, detenu discovered that 286 documents not supplied.
 Came to know from judgement in allied petition.
 RESPONDENT ARGUMENT: Sufficient documents supplied for an
effective representation.
o Second:
 November 10 - §11 COFEPOSA representation made to Central
Government for revocation of detention.
 November 18 – Jailer forwarded to Central Government.
 Not yet disposed of.
 November 21 – Fresh petition filed.
 Respondent admits that jailer has sent representation to Central Govt.
  No counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Govt, showing that
representation considered and disposed.
o Third:
 Grounds served to detenu were in English
 Police Inspector who served grounds of detention explained in mother
tongue but no translation given.
 Established position that all the documents and materials relied upon by the detaining
authority in passing the order of detention must be supplied to the detenu, as soon as
practicable, to enable him to make an effective representation.
 Materials and documents not supplied were part of materials which influenced the
mind of detaining authority in passing order.
 Respondents have not asserted that these documents were irrelevant