JUDGEMENT Rangarajan, J.:- In this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus and to quash the order of detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (thereafter referred to as MISA) as well as some other similar cases, which have been heard together, a number of interesting points have been argued by both sides. For that reason, however, it does not appear necessary to hold up the disposal of this case, pending disposal of other cases, having regard to the fact that it seems possible to dispose of this case on a short ground. 2. The petitioner Ohalrikhurna, belonging to Tuikual 'C' village, attached to Police Station Aizawl in Mizoram, was arrested on 14-7-75 and remanded to police custody on 17-7-75. A case was registered under the Indian Arms Act in connection with which he was produced before a Magistrate, when he was holding Court on camp. In pursuance of the impugned order, dated 20-10-75, passed under the MISA by the Lt. Governor and the Administrator of the Union Territory of Mizoram. He was arrested and grounds were served on the petitioner on 28-10-75; thereafter, he was remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner filed a representation against his detention on 1-11-75; reference was made by the Union Government of Mizoram to the Advisory Board on 26-11-75; thereafter, the representation which the detenu had made to the State Government was dismissed on 14-12-75. An order confirming the petitioner's detention was passed on 4-2-76. 3. The points argued, ably, on behalf of the petitioner by Dr. M.K. Sarma (amicus curiae) include the following: 1) That the order of confirmation, passed in this case after a delay of 33 days after the disposal of the representation which delay has not even been explained, is bad. 2) That the State Government should have disposed of the petitioner's representation even before referring the question of his detention to the Advisory Board. 2) That the State Government should have disposed of the petitioner's representation even before referring the question of his detention to the Advisory Board. 3) The order disposing of the representation of the petitioner by the Government, a copy of which is Annexure-IV to the Return refers to the existence of "ample materials" to justify the order of detention "with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of State and maintenance of public order" whereas the earlier detention stated to be only in the interest of the security of State; no ground or existence of basic fact/material had been communicated to the petitioner concerning the aspect of the maintenance of public order. 4) The confirmation of detention by the Government was more than three months after the initial order of detention. 4. We do not consider it necessary, in the view we take of this case to discuss these questions, though elaborate arguments were addressed to us on the above questions by both sides, who studied a number of decisions with commendable diligence. 5. After hearing both sides at considerable length it seems to us that the order of detention is clearly unsupportable even on a broad view of the case. The ''grounds'' for detention of the petitioner were as mentioned in the copy of the same supplied to the petitioner, annexed as Annexure-II to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by Shri P.S. Bhatnagar, Secretary to the Union Government of Mizoram; the detaining authority - the Lt. Governor (Administrator), Mizoram, has not filed any affidavit and no reasons have been given for not filing his affidavit. It is necessary to read the en-tire grounds: "Grounds for detention of Shri Chalrikhuma s/o (late) Harngzika of Tuikual 'C' Aizawl P.S. Aizawl Dist. Aizawl Mizoram under sub-cl.(ii) of Cl.(a) of sub-s.(1) of S.3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act No.26 of 1971) as amended by the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Act, 1975. To Shri Chalrikhuma s/o Hrangzika of Tuikual 'C' Aizawl P.S. Aizawl Dist. Aizawl, Mizoram. Aizawl Mizoram under sub-cl.(ii) of Cl.(a) of sub-s.(1) of S.3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act No.26 of 1971) as amended by the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Act, 1975. To Shri Chalrikhuma s/o Hrangzika of Tuikual 'C' Aizawl P.S. Aizawl Dist. Aizawl, Mizoram. You are being detained in pursuance of the detention order No. HMP/MISA/ 36/75/9 dated 20-10-75 under sub-cl.(ii) of Cl.(a) of sub-s.(I) of S.3 of the MISA, 1971 (Act No.26 of 1971) on the grounds that you are closely associated with and actively assisting to strengthen the activities of the underground M.N.F. by being an important contact involved in raising funds for the said under-ground organisation which has been aiming at and working for the secession of Mizoram from India. That your activities have been endangering the security of the State (Union Territory of Mizoram) is evident from the facts and particulars given below: (a) That you joined MNV or MNF organisation in March, 1966 under S/S Lt. Colonel Darkhuma at Aizawl and took active part in attacking Aizawl town and fighting against the Indian Army. On arrival of Army at Aizawl you fled away to Ailawng jungle. (b) In the month of April, 1966 you along with about 100 hostiles under the Command of S/S Maj. Lalliana left Mizoram for the erstwhile East Pakistan to undergo your training at the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Your camp was located at Sazeek Tlang where you were given the training of automatic weapons and guerilla warfare under the Pakistani experts. (c) During your stay there you were in close contact with MNF President Laldanga and for which reason you used to visit Dacca occasionally. (d) In November, 1966 you along with S/S Army Chief Thangzuala came to Phulpui in Mizoram. You were given breta rifle with 86 rounds of ammunition to work as his body guard. (e) In the month of February 1967 you were promoted to the rank of Lt. and were attached to 'V' Bn under S/S C.O. Lalliana. (f) In June 1967 you accompanied S/S Senator Malsawna Colney to Manipur and propagated M.N.F., ideology there. You carried out your propaganda for three months and returned to Tuitial camp in Mizoram. (g) You continued your subversive activities and in recognition of your good works done by you, you were promoted to the rank of S/S Capt. of M.N.A., in the month of December, 1969. You carried out your propaganda for three months and returned to Tuitial camp in Mizoram. (g) You continued your subversive activities and in recognition of your good works done by you, you were promoted to the rank of S/S Capt. of M.N.A., in the month of December, 1969. (h) In July 1971 you were transferred to 'K' Bn and worked under S/S Lt. Sailova. (i) That you and your party ambushed a patrol party of 6 A.R. near Fhuldungsai in the month of July 71 and inflicted casualties upon the security forces personnel there. (j) In January 1972 you visited Arakan MNA headquarters and you were ordered by Army Hqrs to come to Aizawl and to work in the town area. (k) On 9th July 1972 you were arrested by Aizawl police and jailed. (1) That after your release from jail in Feb.'73 you started working on over-ground MNF hostile under the direction of S/S Town Commander, Maj. Kapchhunga. (m) You collected advance information about the movement and activities of Security Forces in and around Aizawl town and used to intimate the same to Maj. Kapchhunga for operation purpose. (n) In July 1975 S/S Lt. Rohnuna, one of the accused of the triple murder case of Aizawl came to your house and told you that he would be going out from Aizawl town to submit his report of town duty to his command headquarters and would be coming back after a few days. He gave you a pistol and ammunition and requested you to keep the same in your safe custody till his return. (o) On 14-7-75 you were arrested by the Security Forces at Aizawl for your subversive activities and the said pistol and the ammunitions were recovered from your possession which were kept by you illegally. 2. You are hereby informed that you may make a representation to the State Government against the detention order and that such representation should be addressed to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram forwarded through the Superintendent of Dist. Jail, Aizawl in whose custody you are detained at present. 3. 2. You are hereby informed that you may make a representation to the State Government against the detention order and that such representation should be addressed to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram forwarded through the Superintendent of Dist. Jail, Aizawl in whose custody you are detained at present. 3. You are also informed that under S.11 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act XXVI of 1971) the Advisory Board will, if you desire to be heard, hear in person, if you desire to be heard by the Advisory Board you should intimate such desire in your representation to the State Government. By Order etc. Sd/- Surendra Nath Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram." 6. It has now been authoritatively held by the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Atma Ram, AIR 1951 SC 157 : (52 Cri LJ 373) that the grounds are conclusions from facts. Earliest opportunity has to be given for making representation. The factual context in that case was that certain grounds had been communicated in the first instance, but there was a later communication of further grounds. The High Court of Bombay, speaking through Chagla, C.J. had held that the earlier communication being vague vitiated the order of detention and the second communication of grounds was not legally permissible. Kania, C.J. speaking for the majority (of 4 Judges in a Bench composed of six Judges) disagreed with the view of Chagla, C.J., that there could not be a second further communication of grounds; but, he pointed out that the later communication should not make out new ground(s) and if it does it infringes the constitutional right of the detenu under Art.22(5) of the Constitution (vide para 16, page 157). There was a clear obligation, Kania, C.J. had also pointed out, to communicate to the detenu materials (the disclosure of which it was not necessary to withhold) which will enable the detenu to make a representation (vide para 17, page 165). Any deviation from this rule is a deviation from the intention expressed under Art.22(5) of the Constitution. (page 165). 7. Any deviation from this rule is a deviation from the intention expressed under Art.22(5) of the Constitution. (page 165). 7. In the above light, a reading of the above said "grounds" served on the petitioner in the present case conveys the idea that the petitioner was closely associated with and actively assisting to strengthen the activities of the underground MNF by being an important contact involved in the raising of funds (emphasis added) for the said underground organisation, which has been aiming at and working for the secession of Mizoram from India, thus even endangering the security of the Union Territory of Mizoram. It was in support of the above ground what has been described as "facts and particulars" (a) to (o) were given; according to the petitioner they are each of them grounds. 8. The first question for consideration is whether the ground of "his association with and active assistance" to the activities of the said underground organisation was confined (limited) to his "being an important contact involved in raising of funds for the said organisation". None of the particulars (even if they are only particulars) mentioned in (a) to (o) aforesaid seem to bear upon or have any causal or rational nexus with or lead to an inference of the petitioner being an important contact involved in the raising of funds for the said underground organisation. 9. Shri K.K. Bezbarua, the learned Standing Counsel for the Union Territory of Mizoram was able to pick out what was stated in (1), among them, as bearing upon the said ground, namely, being an important contact involved in raising of fund for the said underground organisation. What might probably be against Mr. Bezbarua's contention is the reference, in (1), to the petitioner starting to work, may be after February 1973, "over-ground MNF hostile (sic)," whereas the work of raising of funds was stated to be for the said under-ground organisation. But Mr. Bezbarua contends that (1) refers to the over-ground activities of the petitioner with reference to an underground organisation and not that the collection of funds was itself an underground operation. Even assuming this could be so it does not appear that with reference to the ground alleged, namely the petitioner being an important contact involved in raising of funds for the said underground organisation became any the clearer by reason of what was stated in (1). Even assuming this could be so it does not appear that with reference to the ground alleged, namely the petitioner being an important contact involved in raising of funds for the said underground organisation became any the clearer by reason of what was stated in (1). It only refers, if at all, to the petitioner, after release from jail in February, 1973, having "started working on (sic) overground MNF (hostile (Sic)" under the directions of a named "Town Commander." No further details having been mentioned in (1) it would still be vague and the ground of the petitioner "being an important contact for the raising of funds for the said underground organisation" would not be cured or become any the clearer by reason of the addition of (1). As (1) has been framed it is not even limited to raising of funds in any case. What is more to the point is that there is no causal connection between (1) and the petitioner being an important contact involved in raising of funds; such connection seems difficult to establish. Yet, realising the above difficulty Shri Bezbarua attempted to show that (a) to (k) really depicted only the background and that (m) (as well as n and o) are all instances of only the petitioner having been "associated with and actively assisting to strengthen the activities of the underground" organisation; (not of raising of funds). Shri Bezbarua would, for this purpose, attempt to sever the averments in the grounds supplied to the petitioner relating to the petitioner being an important contact involved in raising of funds and read it as a separate ground, of which (1), according to him, would only be an Instance. Regarding the first part of the above contention it does not seem permissible to rephrase or even rearrange the averments in the manner sought by Shri Bezbarua. It is worth emphasising, by way of repetition, that "such association with and active assistance to strengthen the activities of the underground" organisation, as was being attributed to the petitioner, was definitely qualified and limited by the expressions that followed, namely, "by being an important contact involved in raising of fund for the said underground organisation" (emphasis added) etc. 10. It is worth emphasising, by way of repetition, that "such association with and active assistance to strengthen the activities of the underground" organisation, as was being attributed to the petitioner, was definitely qualified and limited by the expressions that followed, namely, "by being an important contact involved in raising of fund for the said underground organisation" (emphasis added) etc. 10. The language adopted having been so specific and so limited in its scope it does not seem possible or even proper to read the "grounds'' supplied to the petitioner in the manner suggested by Shri Bezbarua. 11. Shri Bezbarua, it may be recalled, would also like us to read the grounds (a) to (k), which related to the period March 1966 onwards till 1972, as only describing the antecedents of the petitioner, in other words, the background and were not themselves grounds. According to the petitioner, on the other hand, each one of them was separate; they were independent grounds; any vagueness concerning any of them would, therefore, ensure to the benefit of the petitioner resulting in the order of detention having to be quashed for that reason alone. The petitioner's above contention would become clearer if reference is made to (a). According to this averment the petitioner joined "MMB or MNF organisation" (emphasis added) in March 1966 and that he took active part in attacking Aizawl town under S/S Lt. Colonel Darkhuma; on arrival of the Army at Aizawl the petitioner is said to have fled away to the Ailawng jungle. While it is claimed by Shri Bezbarua that 'MNF' is the Mizo National Front, which had been banned under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1971, the expression 'MNV', according to instructions which he (Mr. Bezbarua) has means the Mizo National Volunteers; this is not claimed to have been so banned. (No material has been placed before us to show that this was so banned). Dr. M.K. Sarma appearing for the petitioner rightly argued that the expression 'MNV' or MNF is at least ambivalent and, therefore, vague; if (a) could be treated as a separate ground of detention the vagueness of this ground alone, without more, would entitle the petitioner to have the order of detention quashed. On the contention of Mr. Bezbarua, that (a) to 00 only refer to the background we may, for the purpose of this case, even leave (a) out of consideration. 12. On the contention of Mr. Bezbarua, that (a) to 00 only refer to the background we may, for the purpose of this case, even leave (a) out of consideration. 12. It has been held by the Supreme Court in numerous cases from Dr. Ramkrishan Bhardwaj v. State of Delhi ( AIR 1953 SC 318 : (1953 Cri LJ 1241)) onwards that even one vague ground, when there are a plurality of grounds, would vitiate the detention order, an aspect which had not been dealt with in the case of Atma Ram ((1951) 52 Cri LJ 373) (SC). Kania, C.J., Chandrashekhara Iyer and Fazl All, JJ., who were parties to the decision in the case of Atma Ram, had retired by the time the decision in Dr. Ram Krishan Bhardwaj was render-ed. The other three members of the six member Bench which decided the case of Atma Ram were Patanjali Shastri, B.K. Mukherjee and S.R. Das, JJ. (as they then were). In the case of Dr. Ram Krishan Bhardwaj, Gulam Hussain and Bhagwati, JJ. were the other two Judges who also constituted the Bench. Patanjali Shastri, C.J., speaking for the unanimous Court specifically pointed out that the question regarding the impact of one vague ground, when there were plurality of grounds, on the validity of the order of detention, did not arise for consideration in the case of Atma Ram; the learned Chief Justice also observed that in Atma Ram's case the decision was that, on a proper interpretation of Art.22(5) of the Constitution, the detaining authority should make his meaning clear beyond doubt, without leaving the person detained to his own resource for interpreting the grounds and that the ground mentioned in sub-para (e) of para 2 in that case was vague; the said ground read as follows: "The following facts Show that you are personally helping and actively participating in the above mentioned movement which has resulted in violence and threat to maintenance of public order." 13. The reference was to the "movement" of Jan Sangh, etc. Dealing with the question whether the petitioner in that case was in a position to make an effective representation. Patanjali Shastri, C.J. held that the constitutional right safeguarding the Art.22(5) had been infringed by the detenu not being able to make an effective representation; no question, therefore, could arise whether the detenu was prejudicially affected by the said vagueness. Dealing with the question whether the petitioner in that case was in a position to make an effective representation. Patanjali Shastri, C.J. held that the constitutional right safeguarding the Art.22(5) had been infringed by the detenu not being able to make an effective representation; no question, therefore, could arise whether the detenu was prejudicially affected by the said vagueness. Since the infringement was of a constitutional safeguard which was to be jealously watched and enforced by the Court, the order of detention became vitiated for that reason. The petitioner's right, under Article 22(5), as interpreted by the majority in the case of Atma Ram, ((1951) 52 Cri LJ 373 (SC)), was to be furnished with particulars of grounds of detention sufficient to enable the detenu to make a representation, which on being considered may give relief to him. It will be needless to burden this judgment with all the other decisions of the Supreme Court cited and discussed at the Bar where the case of Atma Ram had been either followed or distinguished. It may be sufficient to refer, among them, to only two recent decisions of the Supreme Court in Khudiram Das v. The State of West Bengal ( (1975) 2 SCC 81 : (1975 Cri LJ 446) and Golam alias Golam Mallick v. The State of West Bengal ( (1975) 2 SCC 4 : (1976 Cri LJ 630)). In the case of Golam it was explained by Sarkaria, J., speaking for the Court that the expression "grounds" does not merely mean a recital or reproduction of a ground of satisfaction of the authority. Its connotation was not restricted to a bare statement of conclusions of fact. It means something more, namely, the factual constituent of the grounds on which the subjective satisfaction of the authority is based. There was further reference to the "basic facts anal material particulars" which were the "foundation" of the order of detention as falling within the meaning of Art.22(5) of the Constitution and S.8(1) of the MISA; these had to be disclosed unless their disclosure was considered by the authority against public interest as provided by Art.22(b) of the Constitution and S.8(2) of the MISA. Following the said decision, Bhagwati, J., who spoke for the Court in the case of Khudiram Das referred to the "communication of grounds" of detention being intended to enable the detenu to make an effective representation. Following the said decision, Bhagwati, J., who spoke for the Court in the case of Khudiram Das referred to the "communication of grounds" of detention being intended to enable the detenu to make an effective representation. If this to be the true reason, he explained, it is obvious that the said communication should be of "all the basic facts and materials" which had been taken into account by the detaining authority in making the order of detention and on which, therefore, the order of detention was based. 14. It is in the light of the above principles that the "grounds" (in the sense of including the material on which the decision was formed) supplied to the detenu in the present case, should be subject to the "closest scrutiny" as observed by Hidayatullah, J., (as he then was) speaking for the Court in Rameshwar Lal Patwari v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1968 SC 1303 : (1968Cri LJ 1490). It was already indicated that the ground of "association of the petitioner to strengthen the activities of the underground MNF" was confined to his "being an important contact involved in raising funds" for the said underground organisation. "Such activities" of the petitioner (as described above) were stated to have endangered the security of Union Territory of Mizoram; the above conclusion was obviously sought to be drawn from the facts and particulars as given from (a) to (o); but none of them specifically relate to the raising of funds. 15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, even on the footing of the arguments of Shri Bezbarua that (a) to (k) constituted only the background and were not themselves the grounds, it was seen that (1) has no causal relationship to or rational nexus with the ground mentioned, namely, the petitioner being an important contact for the collection of funds for the underground organisation. Despite (1) being referred to as a fact/particular, it could only be understood as a fresh and independent ground; obviously it is not relatable to the petitioner serving as an important contact involved in raising funds for the said underground organisation. In any event, (1) would suffer from the lack of necessary particulars which alone could enable the petitioner to make an effective representation. In any event, (1) would suffer from the lack of necessary particulars which alone could enable the petitioner to make an effective representation. Among the numerous decisions of the Supreme Court discussing how any particular detenu had or did not have an opportunity for making an effective representation we would specifically wish to refer to only two decisions:- (1) In Motilal Jain v. State of Bihar, AIR 1968 SC 1509 : (1969 Cri LJ 33). Hegde, J., speaking for the Court, discussed two grounds, among others, one of which was vague and the other was non-existent. The ground which stated to be vague had been mentioned as follows:- (at p.1510) "(a) On 10th March. 1967, he sold match boxes and soap to a shopkeeper of Purnea Court compound at a price higher than that fixed for these commodities and did not grant any receipt for the same." Regarding this ground Hegde, J., observed as follows:- (at p.1511) "On an examination of facts set out in Cl.(a) of the order, it is seen that the name of the shopkeeper to whom the appellant is said to have sold match boxes and soap "at a price higher than that fixed for these commodities" is not mentioned. Neither the price fixed nor the price at which the appellant is said to have sold the match boxes and soap is mentioned. The futility of making representation against an unknown man in respect of an unspecified price can easily be imagined. There was opportunity to the appellant to satisfy the Advisory Board that the alleged purchaser is a fictitious figure or that he is an enemy of his or that the information given by him should otherwise be not accepted. As things stood the appellant was left to attack a shadow. He could not also make any representation as regard the alleged sale or the price at which the goods were sold excepting making a bare denial of the accusations made against him" (2) Speaking for the majority in Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. District Magistrate. Kamrup, AlR 1974 SC 183: (1974 Cri LJ 286), it was emphasised by Mathew, J., that if one of the grounds, among plurality of grounds, was vague for want of particulars the detention was void. For this purpose Mathew, J., relied not only upon the cases of Atma Ram, 1951-52 Cri LJ 373 (SC); Dr. Ram Krishna Bhardwaj. Kamrup, AlR 1974 SC 183: (1974 Cri LJ 286), it was emphasised by Mathew, J., that if one of the grounds, among plurality of grounds, was vague for want of particulars the detention was void. For this purpose Mathew, J., relied not only upon the cases of Atma Ram, 1951-52 Cri LJ 373 (SC); Dr. Ram Krishna Bhardwaj. (1953 Cri LJ 1241) (SC) and Motilal Jain (1969 Cri LJ 33) (SC) (already noticed) but also of the Federal Court in Keshav Talpade v. Emperor, AIR 1943 FC 1 at p.8: (44 Cri LJ 558). The following observations of Gwyer, C.J., were quoted with approval:- "If a detaining authority gives four reasons for detaining a man, without distinguishing between them, and any two or three of the reasons are held to be bad, it can never be certain to what extent the bad reasons operated on the mind of the authority or whether the detention order would have been made at all if only one or two good reasons had been before them." Similar considerations would apply to (1) which is of the vaguest description. It was no doubt also stated therein that the petitioner was working underground under direction of the Town Commander Major Kapchhunga. Regarding this allegation the petitioner could do no better than merely deny that he was not working with and under the direction of the said person. Nothing more being possible, the petitioner was disabled from making any effective representation. For this reason Art.22(5) of the Constitution and S.8 of the MISA were violated. 16. It is obvious that the 'grounds' had been drawn up without any application of mind whatever but in a mechanical or casual manner. There had been no effort to understand the requirements of both the MISA and the Constitution. No mind seems to have been applied to the existence of 'grounds' sufficient to form the requisite satisfaction or even in formulating or communicating them to the detenu; the concerned authority (ies) do not even appear to have realised the need to communicate not only the ground, but also such basic facts and material particulars as would be necessary for the petitioner to make an effective representation, subject of course to such protection as could be claimed under Art.22(6) of the Constitution and S.8(2) of the MISA. No such protection has been claimed. No such protection has been claimed. The affidavit-in-opposition has not given us any material which may be regarded as helpful; it has not attempted to deal with so many of the aspects which required to be dealt with therein. 17. Before we conclude we wish to acknowledge the considerable amount of assistance we have derived both from Dr. M.K. Sarma who argued the case amicus curiae and Mr. K.C. Bezbarua, learned Standing Counsel for the Union Territory of Mizoram; both of them placed all the relevant cases before us with diligence and fairness. If our ultimate decision in this case has become so easy it is because of the clarity and scholarship that informed the arguments of both sides before us. 18. It is seen from the order of the Division Bench, which issued the rule in this case, that Dr. M.K. Sarma was permitted to visit the detenu in jail and the Union Government of Mizoram was directed to pay the journey expenses of Dr. M.K. Sarma. Mr. Bezbarua states that he will instruct the Union Government of Mizoram to do so. When we were, in addition, considering (in view of the considerable amount of pains taken by Dr. Sarma and the time taken for the hearing of this case) the payment of hearing fees to Dr. Sarma, Dr. Sarma very graciously told us that having been appointed amicus curiae his only endeavour was to assist the Court and that he does not wish to be rewarded in monetary terms. We record our appreciation of this gesture by Dr. Sarma. 19. In the result the order of detention of the petitioner is quashed and he is directed to be set at liberty unless of is liable to be detained for some other valid cause. 20. The petition is allowed. Petition allowed.