T. NK. Singh, J;— 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the detention order dated 2.6.2010 passed by the District Magistrate. Imphal West directing the petitioner-detenue. Shri Sapam Rishikanta Singh to be detained under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, the order of the State Government dated 9.6.2010 for approving the detention order dated 2.6.2010 and also the order of the State Government dated 12.7.2010 for confirming the detention order dated 2.6.2010 fixing the period of detention for 12 months from the date of detention. 2. Heard Mr. H. Premkrishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-detenue, Mr. A. Modhuchandra, learned GA appearing for the State respondents and also Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned CGSC appearing for the respondent No.4. Factual Background 3. The petitioner-detenue was arrested by the CDO, Imphal West led by one ASI Y. Shamu Singh, on 27.5.2010 at about 6.10 p.m. from north AOC in connection FIR No.226 (5)2010 IPS under section 16/1II 20 UA (P) A and 25(I-B) A. Act and he was remanded to police custody till 2.6.2010. While the detenue was in custody in connection with the said FIR a copy of the impugned detention order dated 2.6.2010 was furnished to him. 4. The learned District Magistrate, Imphal West, under his letter being No, Crl./NSA/49/lO Imphal the 4th June, 2010, furnished the grounds of detention and also the copies of the documents which formed the basis of the grounds of detention to the petitioner-detenue. For easy reference, the letter/grounds of detention dated 4.6.2010 is quoted hereunder : "Government of Manipur Office of the District Magistrate: Imphal West District No.Crl./NSA/No.49 of 2010 Imphal, the 4th June, 2010 To Shri Sapam Rishikanta Singh @ Chaoba @ Thoi (30 yrs.) s/o (L) S. Sanatombi Singh of Singjamei Sapam Leikai, P.S. Singjamei, District, Imphal West. Manipur. Subject: Grounds of detention under section 8 of the National Security Act. 1980. In pursuance of section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 you are hereby informed that the grounds of detention are as follows: 1. That, you joined the banned organization, namely, Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) Noyon faction in the 1st week of December, 2009 through Shri Salam Sushilkumar Singh @ Tababi s/o S. Birachandra Singh of Singjamei Sapam Leikai, an important member of KCP (Noyon). Then you started to work in KCP (Noyon) along with Shri S. Sushilkumar Singh under the command of Mr. That, you joined the banned organization, namely, Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) Noyon faction in the 1st week of December, 2009 through Shri Salam Sushilkumar Singh @ Tababi s/o S. Birachandra Singh of Singjamei Sapam Leikai, an important member of KCP (Noyon). Then you started to work in KCP (Noyon) along with Shri S. Sushilkumar Singh under the command of Mr. Rojit Singh @ Pendaba. In the 2nd week Mr. Rojit directed you to collect one hand grenade on 18.12.2009 in the evening from Smt. Devjani Devi and her husband Ch. Shyamananda Roy of Lairikyengbam Leikai (both are KYKL member) at the waiting shed located near Lilashing Khongnangkhong and to hurl the same at the Capital Project, Chingmeirong for neglecting demanded money of KYKL/KCP Noyon faction. Accordingly, you along with S. Sushilkumar Singh went to Lilashing Khongnangkhong on 18.12.2009 in the evening in a scooter (Honda Dio) B/No.MN-01M/9293. On the sameday at about 5:00 p.m. you were arrested by a Police team of CDO/IW from the waiting shed near Lilashing Khongnangkhong Traffic Point. One Spice Mobile hand set with SIM card No.89911600000010882336 and a Scooter (Honda Dio) black in colour B/No.MN-01M/9223 were recovered from your possession and the same were seized by observing formality. It refers to FIR No.445(12)2009 IPS under section 20 UA(P) AAct and 5 Expl. Subs. Act. You were arrested in connection with the above noted case and remanded to Police custody till 26.12.2009. However, you were released on bail by the court on 26.12.2009 when you were produced before the court for remanding into judicial custody. 2. That, after release on bail by the court on 26.12.2009 you resumed your work in KCP (Noyon). In the 1st week of January, 2010 Mr. Rojit Singh @ Pendaba directed you to extort money from the general public. Government employees. Schools. Colleges. Contractors, businessmen. Shopkeepers, private firms etc. located in Imphal West District. Accordingly, you and your associates of. KCP(Noyon) extorted 3 (three) lakhs each from D.M. College, GP Women College and Family Welfare Deptt. from February, 2010 to May. 2010 and deposited the extorted money to Mr. Rojit Singh from time to time. You continued similar task till your arrest. Such act of extortion of money carried out by you and your associates gave a terror wave and peril to the lives to general public which is prejudicial to the security of the state and maintenance of public order. 2010 and deposited the extorted money to Mr. Rojit Singh from time to time. You continued similar task till your arrest. Such act of extortion of money carried out by you and your associates gave a terror wave and peril to the lives to general public which is prejudicial to the security of the state and maintenance of public order. The avowed aim and objective of the Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) is to secede the State of Manipur from the Union of India and to create an independent sovereign State of Manipur. For this purpose, the said organisation started procuring of arms and ammunitions through foreign countries and recruited youngsters from various communities in Manipur. In pursuance of their objectives, the members of this organization have committed series of heinous crimes like murder, dacoity, robbery, extortion, kidnapping for ransom in different parts of I.lanipur. The ringleaders have sought foreign assistance and established links with countries like Bangladesh, Myanmar (Burma), Pakistan and other countries inimical to Indian sovereignty and have committed series of prejudicial activities affecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India. In consideration of the large scale prejudicial activities of the Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs declared the Kangleipak Community Party (KCP) as Unlawful Association vide the Gazette of India, Notification under No.SO 2883(E) dated 13.11.2009. 3. That, on 27.5.2010 at 6:10 p.m., you were arrested by a police team of CDO/IW led by ASI Y. Shamu Singh from Bakliwal Oil Pump North AOC and recovered one Maruti Car B/No.MN-01W/3909, 5 (five) rounds of AK ammunition, one demand letter of KCP and one Nokia hand set were recovered from your possession and seized the same by observing formality. Then you were handed over to the OC/Imphal P.S. with a written report and the seized articles. On the strength of the report OC/Imphal P.S. registered a regular case under FIR No.226(5)/2010 IPS under section 16/17/20 UA(P) AAct and 25(1-B)AAct. You were arrested in connection with the case and remanded to Police custody till 2.6.2010. 4. Then you were handed over to the OC/Imphal P.S. with a written report and the seized articles. On the strength of the report OC/Imphal P.S. registered a regular case under FIR No.226(5)/2010 IPS under section 16/17/20 UA(P) AAct and 25(1-B)AAct. You were arrested in connection with the case and remanded to Police custody till 2.6.2010. 4. That, in view of your tendencies and inclinations reflected in the offences committed by you in the proximate past by being a hardcore member of the banned organization Kangleikpak Communist Party, (KCP in short) Noyon faction, which aims at establishing a sovereign independent State of Manipur by waging war against the lawfully established Government of India and Manipur holding fire arms, and carrying out prejudicial activities such as extortion of money and transportation of arms and ammunitions, which disturbs public order affecting public tranquillity. I am satisfied that after having availed of bail facilities and becoming a free person, you being a sympathizer of the said organization would continue to indulge in the same activities which are prejudicial to the security of the state and maintenance of the public order. Hence, the application of normal criminal law against you will not at all be effective to prevent you from the commission of further prejudicial activities. An alternative preventive measure is, therefore, immediately called for. From the above grounds, I am satisfied that with a view to prevent you from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the state and maintenance of public order, I have made this order directing that you be detained under NSA, 1980. 5. That, the copies of the following documents which form the basis of the grounds of your detention are enclosed herewith for your reference. (a) Your statement given before the I.O. on 28.5.2010. (b) Statements of ASIY. Shamu Singh of CDO/IW, C/No. 0601106 L. Lenin Singh of CDO/IW and C/No. 9802027 M. Shangreikan of CDO/IW recorded under section Cr.PC in connection with FIR No.226 (5)2010 IPS under section 16/17/20 UA(P) A. Act and25(1B)A.Act. (c) Copy of Arrest Memo dated 27.5.2010. (d) Copy of Notification under No. SO 2883(E) dated 13.11.2009. (e) Copy of FIR No.445 (12)2009 IPS under section 20 UA(P) A. Act and 5 Expl. Subs. Act. (f) Copy of FIR No.226 (5)2010 IPS under section 16/17/20 UA (P) A.Actand25(1-B)A.Act. (g) Copy of the Government of Manipur. Home Department's Order No.17(1)/49/80-H(Pt-I) dated 11.5.2010. 6. (d) Copy of Notification under No. SO 2883(E) dated 13.11.2009. (e) Copy of FIR No.445 (12)2009 IPS under section 20 UA(P) A. Act and 5 Expl. Subs. Act. (f) Copy of FIR No.226 (5)2010 IPS under section 16/17/20 UA (P) A.Actand25(1-B)A.Act. (g) Copy of the Government of Manipur. Home Department's Order No.17(1)/49/80-H(Pt-I) dated 11.5.2010. 6. That, you are hereby informed that you have the right to make representation to the Government of Manipur as well as to the Central Government against the order of detention passed against you and you are hereby afforded the earliest opportunity for making such representation if you wish to do so. The representation is to be sent through Addl. Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur in respect of representation to the Government of Manipur and to 'The Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs" (Department of internal Security) North Block, New- Delhi-110001 in respect of representation to the Central Government and should be submitted within three weeks from the date of detention. Further, you are informed that you have right to make representation to the detaining authority within twelve days from the date of detention or till the order is approved by the State Government whichever is earlier. The representation is to be sent to the District Magistrate. Imphal West. Representation if any, would be placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks time from the date of your detention and such other documents/papers in connection with your detention, as the Government is bound under the law to produce before the Board for its consideration. 7. That, you are hereby informed that the Advisory Board may call for such information as it may deem necessary from you and if you desire to be heard, hear you in person. You may intimate about it and arrangement may be made to produce you before the Board on the date fixed by it for the purpose. Sd/- (K. Radhakumar Singh) District Magistrate, Imphal West District." 5. The petitioner-detenue filed the representation dated 22.6.2010 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur and also to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Internal Security, North Block, New Delhi. Sd/- (K. Radhakumar Singh) District Magistrate, Imphal West District." 5. The petitioner-detenue filed the representation dated 22.6.2010 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur and also to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Internal Security, North Block, New Delhi. The impugned detention order dated 2.6.2010 was also approved by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section 3(4) of the NSA vide order dated 9.6.2010 and ultimately the State Government, after consideration of the past potentially dangerous activities of the petitioner-detenue, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and also the opinion expressed by the Advisory Board, confirmed the detention order and fixed the period of detention for 12 months from the date of detention. 6. Both the representations filed by the petitioner-detenue had been rejected by the State Government and the Central Government. Hence, the present writ petition. 7. The two grounds for assailing the detention order, the approval order and the confirmation order in the present writ petition are : - (i) (First ground) the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the petitioner-detenue, who is in the custody is likely to be released on bail in the near future by the normal criminal court as bails are granted in similar cases by the criminal courts, is based on no evidence; but, it is only ipse dixit of the detaining authority; (ii) (Second ground) the grounds of detention are very vague inasmuch as particulars of all crimes like murder, dacoity, robbery, extortion or kidnapping, etc., mentioned in the grounds of detention and also copies of the demand letters of KCP Noyon faction) said to have been circulated by the petitioner-detenue to the D.M. College GP College and Family, Welfare Department from February, 2010 to May, 2010 are not furnished to the petitioner-detenue and as a result the petitioner-detenue, could not file effective representation. Consequently, the detention of the petitioner-detenue under the impugned detention order is illegal. First Ground 8. It is not disputed by the petitioner-detenue that he was arrested earlier in connection with FIR case No. 445(12)2009 IPS under section 20 UA(P) AAct and 5 Expl. Subs. Act, and he was released on bail by the court on, 26.12.2009 while he was produced before the court for remanding him to judicial custody. First Ground 8. It is not disputed by the petitioner-detenue that he was arrested earlier in connection with FIR case No. 445(12)2009 IPS under section 20 UA(P) AAct and 5 Expl. Subs. Act, and he was released on bail by the court on, 26.12.2009 while he was produced before the court for remanding him to judicial custody. For the similar offence under UA(P) A Act, the petitioner-detenue was again arrested on 27.5.2010 by a police team of CDO Imphal West led by ASI Y. Shamu Singh in connection FIR No.226(5)2010 IPS under section 16/17/20 UA(P) AAct and 25(1-B)AAct and remanded to police custody till 2.6.2010. While in custody in connection with the said FIR case, he was detained under the impugned detention order. 9. In such situation, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the detenue, who is in judicial custody, is likely to be released on bail in the near future by the normal criminal court as bails are granted in similar cases by the criminal courts, cannot only be ipse dixit of the detaining authority inasmuch as it is the clear admission of the detenue that he was released on bail earlier in connection with the FIR case for an offence under UA(P) A Act and for the second time he had been arrested for an offence under UA(P) AAct. 10. The Apex Court in Senthamilselvi v. State of T.N and Anr., (2006) 5 SCC 676 held that normally subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that there is likelihood of detenue being released on bail is not to be interfered with in case the Detaining Authority had indicated reasons for his conclusion. It is fairly well settled that there is no straight jacket formula for deciding the material sufficiency for coming to the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenue is likely to be released on bail. Therefore, it is clear that as to whether there are sufficient materials for coming to the subjective satisfaction that the detenue is likely to be released on bail is to be decided on the basis of the given case. The relevant portion of para 10 of the SCC in Senthamilselvi's case (supra) is quoted hereunder : "10. It was also submitted that since the detenue had not filed any bail application, the detaining authority could not have inferred that there was possibility of his being released on bail. The relevant portion of para 10 of the SCC in Senthamilselvi's case (supra) is quoted hereunder : "10. It was also submitted that since the detenue had not filed any bail application, the detaining authority could not have inferred that there was possibility of his being released on bail. Strong reliance is placed on several decisions of this court. It has to be noted that whether prayer for bail would be accepted depends on circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied. The only requirement is that the detaining authority should be aware that the detenue is already in custody and is likely to be released on bail. The conclusion that the detenue may be released on bail cannot be ipse dixit of the detaining authority. On the basis of materials before him, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that there is likelihood of the detenue being released on bail. That is his subjective satisfaction based on materials. Normally, such satisfaction is not to be interfered with......" For the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the first ground for challenging the impugned detention order is not sustainable in the eye of law, accordingly rejected. Second Ground 11. So far as the second ground is concerned, it is clear that while furnishing the ground of detention under the said letter of the District Magistrate, Imphal West dated 4.2.2010, the detaining authority, vide para No. 5 of the grounds of detention, had clearly stated that copies of the documents which form the basis of the grounds of detention were enclosed and furnished to the petitioner-detenue. It is not disputed that all the copies of the documents mentioned in para 5 of the grounds of detention which form the basis of the grounds of the detention had been furnished to the petitioner-detenue. 12. Deprivation of personal freedom must be founded on the most serious considerations relevant to the welfare objective of the society, specified in the Constitution. The object of law of preventive detention is not punitive but only preventive. Preventive detention is an anticipatory measure and does not relate to an offence. It is resorted when the Executive is convinced that such detention is necessary in order to prevent the persons detained from acting in a manner prejudicial to certain objects which are specified by the law. Preventive detention is an anticipatory measure and does not relate to an offence. It is resorted when the Executive is convinced that such detention is necessary in order to prevent the persons detained from acting in a manner prejudicial to certain objects which are specified by the law. The framers of the Constitution, being aware that preventive detention involves a serious encroachment on the right to personal liberty, took care to incorporate, in clauses (4) and (5) of article 22; certain minimum safeguards for the protection of persons sought to be preventively detained. These safeguards are required to be "zealously watched and enforced by the court". The Apex Court in Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1981) 4 SCC 481 observed that - ".....May be that the detenue is a smuggler whose tribe (and how their numbers increase) deserves no sympathy since its activities have paralysed the Indian economy. But the loss of preventive detention afford only a modicum of safeguards to persons detained under them and if freedom and liberty are to have any meaning in our democratic setup, it is essential that at least those safeguards are not denied to the detenues....." (Ref. : para 4 of the SCC in Rattan Singh's case (supra)." 13. No doubt, the doctrine of preventive power of the Administrative/Executive authority constitutionally validates preventive process for the maintenance of public order, security of the State, national security, defence of India and relations of India with the foreign power. The Apex Court in Amir Shad Khan v. L. Hmingliana and Others, (1991) 4 SCC 39 held that - "The law of preventive detention is harsh to the person detained and, therefore, there can be no doubt that it must be strictly construed. Article 22(3) (b) denies to a person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention the protection of clauses (1) and (2) of the said article. Clause (4) thereof enjoins that the preventive detention law must conform to the limitations set out thereunder. Clause (5) of article 22 reads as under : "22. Article 22(3) (b) denies to a person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention the protection of clauses (1) and (2) of the said article. Clause (4) thereof enjoins that the preventive detention law must conform to the limitations set out thereunder. Clause (5) of article 22 reads as under : "22. (5) 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." (Ref. para 3 of the SCC in Amir Shad Khan's case (supra). 14. It is clear from the maxim "Expressum Facit Cessare taciturn" that "when there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded". More than half a century ago, the Constitution Bench in State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya, AIR (38) 1951 SC 157, in the context of article 22(5) and preventive detention Act (Act No.4 of 1950) clearly held that "what must be supplied are the grounds on which the order has been made and nothing else. And also further held that vagueness of the grounds of detention is a relative term and it is to be decided on the basis of the fact of case. In other words, as to whether there is vagueness in the grounds of detention is to be decided on the basis of the fact of that case. What is guaranteed under article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India to a detenue is that the petitioner-detenue should be informed the conclusion of facts which form the grounds of detention and furnished the copies of the documents which form the grounds of detention. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya's case (supra) held as follows : "..........We think that the position will be clarified if it is appreciated in the first instance what are the rights given by article 22(5). The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya's case (supra) held as follows : "..........We think that the position will be clarified if it is appreciated in the first instance what are the rights given by article 22(5). The first part of article 22, clause (5) gives a right to the detained person to be furnished with "the grounds on which the order has been made" and that has to be done "as soon as may be." The second right given to such person is of being afforded "the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order". It is obvious that the grounds for making the order as mentioned above, are the grounds on which the detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to make the order. These grounds, therefore, must be in existence when the order is made. By their very nature the grounds are conclusions of facts and not a complete detained recital of all the facts. The conclusions drawn from the available facts will show in which of the three categories of prejudicial acts the suspended activities of the particular person is considered to fall. These conclusions are the "grounds" and they must be supplied. No part of such "grounds" can be held back nor can any more "grounds" be added thereto. What must be supplied are the "grounds on which the order has been made" and nothing less. The second right of being afforded "earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order" is not confined to only a physical opportunity by supplying paper and pen only. In order that a representation can be made the person detained must first have knowledge of the grounds on which the authorities conveyed that they were satisfied about the necessity of making the detention order. It is, therefore, clear that if the representation has to be intelligible to meet the charges contained in the grounds, the information conveyed to be detained person must be sufficient to attain that object. Ordinarily, the "grounds" in the sense of conclusions drawn by the authorities will indicate the kind of prejudicial act the detenue is suspended of being engaged in and that will be sufficient to enable him to make a representation setting out his innocent activities to dispel the suspicion against him. Ordinarily, the "grounds" in the sense of conclusions drawn by the authorities will indicate the kind of prejudicial act the detenue is suspended of being engaged in and that will be sufficient to enable him to make a representation setting out his innocent activities to dispel the suspicion against him. Of course if the detenue is told about the details of facts besides the grounds he will certainly be in a better position to deal with the same. It is significant that the clause does not say that the "grounds" as well as details of facts on which they are based must be furnished or furnished at one time. The law does not prescribe within what time after the grounds are furnished the representation could be made. The time in each case appears deliberately on provided for expressly, because circumstances vary in each case and make it impossible to fix a particular time for the exercise of each of these two rights." (emphasis supplied) 15. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in Naresh Chandra Ganguli for Shri Ram Prasad Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1959 SC 1335 (V 46 C 188) had considered in threadbare the rights of the detenue under article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and what are to be informed to the detenue for enabling him to file effective representations. In that case, grounds for detention furnished to the detenue reads as follows : "No. 85 Grounds for detention under clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV of 1950) To Sri Ram Prasad Das s/o Bepin Behari Das, of 6, Muralidhar Sen Lane, Calcutta. You are being detained in pursuance of a detention order made in exercise of power (Act IV of 1950) on the ground that you are acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, as evidenced by the particulars given below: 1. You are being detained in pursuance of a detention order made in exercise of power (Act IV of 1950) on the ground that you are acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, as evidenced by the particulars given below: 1. That on 13.9.1958 you attended a meeting of Eastern Indian Refugee Council held at the Refugee Office at 6 Murlidhar Sen Lane and vilified Prime Minister of India for his allegedly turning a deaf ear to the untold miseries of the refugees and while referring to the recent agreement between the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan you vented feelings of violence against the Prime Minister of India by emphasising that in order to save the refugees and the territories of the Indian Union, Sri Nehru should be murdered, if necessary and so the need of another Nathuram Godse was felt now. 2. That in course of discussion with members of your party on 17.9.1958 at 6 Murlidhar Sen Lane you stated that the Indian Prime Minister had made a Present of certain Indian enclaves to Pakistan in pursuance of the policy of appeasement which has been called upon the members to build up strong movement against the implementation of Nehru-Noon Pact. You also tried to rouse passions by alleging that the Indian Prime Minister had no sympathy for West Bengal. 3. That on 26.9.1958 you attended another meeting of the South Burtolla Branch of the Jana Sangha at Jatin Mitter Park, where you denounced the aforesaid agreement between the two Prime Ministers and stressed the need of forming a militia with the youth of the country for the safety of the people living in border areas and urged all to enrol themselves for the said purpose. 4. That you intend to proceed to Delhi on 9 10.1958 and that you are likely to instigate plans which may adversely affect the personal security of the Prime Minister of India. Your action above is bound to result in the maintenance of public order being prejudicially affected. 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 Assistant Secy. Home (Special) Department, Government of West Bengal, and forwarded through the Supdt. of the Jail in which you are detained as early as possible. 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 Assistant Secy. Home (Special) Department, Government of West Bengal, and forwarded through the Supdt. of the Jail in which you are detained as early as possible. You are also informed that under section 10 of the P.D. Act, 1950 (IV of 1950) the Advisory Board shall if you desire to be heard hear you in person and that if you desire to be so heard by the Advisory Board you should intimate such desire in your representation to the State Government. Sd./- Illegible. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta" 16, The detenue took the plea that the grounds mentioned in para 4 are vague inasmuch as there is no material particulars for being clearly understood the charge/ground. The Apex Court clearly held that there is no requirement for recital of details which form the basis of conclusion of fact in para 4 inasmuch as facts mentioned therein are sufficient for the purpose of filing representation. Para 13 of the AIR in Naresh Chandra Ganguli's case (supra) read as follows : "13. The contention raised before the High Court has been repeated before us, that the grounds contained in para 4, are vague and indefinite, not enabling, the person detained to make his representation. It will appear from the paragraph aforesaid that the petitioner intended to proceed to Delhi on 9th October, 1958, with a view to instigating plans against the personal security of the Prime Minister. It is clear that the place, date and purpose of the planned nefarious activity, have all been stated as clearly as could be expected. But it was argued that it was also necessary to state that details of the plan to be hatched in Delhi. There are several answers to this contention. Paragraph 4 has reference to something which was apprehended but lay in the womb of the future. From the nature of the fact that it was not an event which had already happened but what was apprehended to be in the contemplation of the detenue and his associates, if any, no further details of the plan could possibly be disclosed. Paragraph 4 has reference to something which was apprehended but lay in the womb of the future. From the nature of the fact that it was not an event which had already happened but what was apprehended to be in the contemplation of the detenue and his associates, if any, no further details of the plan could possibly be disclosed. As was observed in the decision of this court in 1951 SCR 157 at pp.184 and 185: (AIR 1951 SC157 at para 164) (supra), vagueness is a relative term. Its meaning must vary with the facts and circumstances of each case. What may be said to be vague in one case, may not be so in another, and it would not be asserted as a general rule that a ground is necessarily vague if the only answer of the detained person can be to deny it. If the statement of facts is capable of being clearly understood and is sufficiently definite to enable the detained person to make his presentation, it cannot be said that it is vague. Further, it cannot be denied that particulars of what has taken place, can be more definitely stated than those of events which are yet in the offing. In the very nature of things, the main object of the Act is to prevent persons from doing something which comes within the purview of any one of the sub-clauses of clause (a) of section 3(1) of the Act." (emphasis supplied) 17. From the foregoing decisions of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court it is clear that what is to be furnished or communicated to the detenue in compliance of the mandates of article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is only the grounds of detention and nothing else and also furnishing of grounds of detention is only for enabling the detenue to file effective representation against the detention order and as to whether or not the grounds of detention furnished to the detenue are sufficient for filing the effective representations is to be decided on facts and circumstances of each case. 18. 18. Keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in the cases referred to above, we have carefully perused the grounds of detention dated 4.6.2010 and are of the firm view that the vagueness of the grounds of detention order is a relative term and it has to be decided on the basis of the fact of each case and also that what must be supplied are the grounds which form the order and nothing else. What is guaranteed under article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to a detenue is that the petitioner should be informed of the conclusion of fact which form the grounds of detention and furnished the copies of the documents which form the grounds of detention for making effective representation, at the earliest opportunity against the detention order. Preventive detention is often described as "jurisdiction of suspicion". No doubt, personal liberty protected under article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of constitutional value and at the same time in the case of preventive detention, no offence is proved; justification of such detention is suspicion or reasonable probability and there is no conviction which can only be warranted by legal evidence. To prevent misuse of this potentially dangerous power, the law of preventive detention has to be strictly construed and meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguards is mandatory and vital keeping the personal liberty protected under Art. 21 which is so sacrosanct. 19. We have also applied our mind as to whether the grounds of detention, more particularly para 2 of the grounds of detention, are so vague or not; or will it not be the sufficient facts which form the grounds of detention for the purpose of making representation under article 22(5) of the Constitution of India by the detenue?. We further reiterate that what are guaranteed under article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to a detenue are that the detenue should be informed of the conclusion of the facts which form the grounds of detention and furnished the copies of the documents which form the grounds of detention for making effective representation, at the earliest opportunity, against the detention order. In the given case, what are guaranteed under article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to a detenue are fulfilled and accordingly the second ground for assailing the detention order is devoid of merit. 20. In the given case, what are guaranteed under article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to a detenue are fulfilled and accordingly the second ground for assailing the detention order is devoid of merit. 20. In the result, this writ petition is devoid of merit and hereby dismissed. _____________