JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr.Rajeetchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Modhuchandra, learned GA for the respondents. 2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the learned District Magistrate (Detaining Authority) being No.CRIL/NSA/7/2011 dated 16.04.2011 directing the petitioner-detenu, who is now in judicial custody to be detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA, 1980) until further order; the order of State Government being No.17(1)64/2011-H dated 26.04.2011 for approving the detention order dated 16.04.2011 and also the order of the State Government being No.17(1)64/2011-H dated 2.6.2011 for confirming the detention order dated 16.04.2011 and fixed the period of detention for 12 months from the date of detention. 3. The concise fact leading to the filing of the present writ petition is briefly noted: On 08.03.2011 at about 6.30 p.m. a team of District Police, Imphal West in co-ordination with Aizawl Police picked up the petitioner-detenu from Bongkawn area in Aizawl in connection with FIR case being No.150(12)2008 LLI PS under Section 265/34 IPC & 25(1-B) A Act. Thereafter, he was brought back to Manipur on 10.03.2011 after getting Transit Warrant from the Magistrate 1st Class, Aizawl. After reaching Imphal, the petitioner-detenu was produced before the concerned Magistrate who remanded him into Police custody till 22.03.2011. While the petitioner-detenu was in Police custody, it is alleged, he was subjected to interrogation at Kangla involving personnel of various departments. He denied any involvement with the KCP and professed his innocence by denying the allegations levelled against him. 4. On 22.03.2011 petitioner-detenu was produced with a prayer for remanding into judicial custody but he was allowed to be formally arrested in connection with FIR No.86(9)2010 NBL PS under Section 365/368/34 IPC & 16 UA(P) A Act and remanded into police custody till 29th March 2011. Again on 29.03.2011 petitioner-detenu was arrested formally in connection with FIR No.80(7)2010 LLI P.S under Section 326/3-7/34 IPC, 25(1-C) Arms Act and UA (P) A Act and remanded into police custody till 02.04.2011. On 16.04.2011 while the petitioner-detenu was in judicial custody, the District Magistrate, Imphal East District passed the impugned detention order dated 16.04.2011 and copy of it was served to the petitioner-detenu in the Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa. 5. On 16.04.2011 while the petitioner-detenu was in judicial custody, the District Magistrate, Imphal East District passed the impugned detention order dated 16.04.2011 and copy of it was served to the petitioner-detenu in the Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa. 5. In accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the NSA, the learned District Magistrate, Imphal East under his letter being No.Cril/NSA/7/2011 dated 19.04.2011 furnished, not only the grounds of detention but also copies of documents except one of the documents i.e FIR No.29(5)2008 NBL P.S under Section 20 UA(P) A Act, which formed the basis of grounds of detention to the petitioner-detenu. For easy reference the said letter of the learned District Magistrate, Imphal East District dated 19.04.2011 (Annexure-A/2 to the writ petition) is quoted hereunder: GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE: IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT: No.Cril/NSA/7/2011 Porompat the 19th April, 2011 To Shri Chirom Herojit Meitei @ Abung (29 years) s/o Ch.Shyam Singh of Waheng Khuman Mamang Leikai, PS Wangoi, Bishnupur District, Manipur. Subject: Grounds of detention u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. In accordance with the provision of Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 you are hereby informed that the grounds of your detention as follows: 1. That you joined the banned organization namely Kanglei Yaol Kanna Lup (KYKL in short) as a member in the first part of 2008 through his elder brother namely Shri Ch. Ranjit Singh @ Lanngamba S/S Publicity Secretary. After joining the organization you started to work in the finance section as directed by your brother in Bishnupur District. On 15.5.2008 at about 0100 hrs you were arrested by a team of 12th Maratha L.I from Leimapokpam Mamang Leikai and handed over to the OC, Nambol PS. Then you were re-arrested in connection with the FIR No.29(5)2008 NBL PS u/s 20 UA(P)A Act and remanded to Police custody till 19.5.2008 and on the same day you were produced before the Court for judicial remand but you were released on bail by the Court. 2. That, after release on bail you contacted Shri Ch.Tiken Singh @ Prem @ Sunil of Waheng Khuman Mamang Leikai and started to work in the KCP (MTF) Sunil faction as a member. Red Army is its armed wing. 2. That, after release on bail you contacted Shri Ch.Tiken Singh @ Prem @ Sunil of Waheng Khuman Mamang Leikai and started to work in the KCP (MTF) Sunil faction as a member. Red Army is its armed wing. After joining the organization you came to know KCP (MTF Sunil faction) members including K. Inaocha Singh @ J.K. of Wangkhei Tokpam Leikai, I. Bipin Singh of Oinam Awang Leikai and Smt Thoujaojam (N) Chirom (O) Geeta Devi @ Geetanjali of Waheng Khuman Mamang Leikai. Shri Ch.Tiken Singh @ Sunil S/S Commander of the faction directed the KCP (MTF-Sunil faction) members including his wife and above noted members to work in the finance section under his command and to extort money from the general public, government employees, shopkeepers, private firms etc as party fund. Since the last part of November, 2008 you and your above associates left their houses and took asylum at Aizawl, Mizoram as led by Ch.Tiken @ Prem @ Sunil as there was factional crisis in the KCP (MTF) such as Sunil faction and the rival faction. While you and your associates taking asylum, you directed the KCP (MTF Sunil Faction) members who were working in Manipur to extort money as usual. You and your associates collected about 50 lakhs in a month from the KCP members of finance section who were operating in Manipur. As per your direction, the KCP members of finance section carried out the following crimes in Manipur. i) Kidnapping of one pheiroijam Okenjit Singh s/o Ph.Parijat Singh of Nongada Makha Leikai on 3.12.2008 at about 8.00 p.m. for ransom. It refers to FIR No.150(12)2008 LLI PS u/s 365/34 IPC & 25(1-B) A Act. ii) Life attempt of Shri Elangbam Shyamkishor Singh s/o (L) Amutombi Singh of Yaingangpokpi Awang Leikai on 17.7.2010 at abut 9.50 pm in between Leimakhong Mapal and Seijang Village. It refers to FIR No.80(7)2010 LLI PS u/s 326/3-7/34 IPC, 25(1-C) A Act & 20 UA (P) A Act. iii) Kidnapping of Dr.Joymati and staff Nurse namely Wahengbam Kavita Devi of PHC Mekola for ranson on 13.9.2010 at about 12.30 pm from PHC Mekola. It refers to FIR No.86(9)2010 NBL PS u/s 365/368/34 IPC & 16 UA(P) A Act. You and your associates carried out similar task till their arrest. 3. iii) Kidnapping of Dr.Joymati and staff Nurse namely Wahengbam Kavita Devi of PHC Mekola for ranson on 13.9.2010 at about 12.30 pm from PHC Mekola. It refers to FIR No.86(9)2010 NBL PS u/s 365/368/34 IPC & 16 UA(P) A Act. You and your associates carried out similar task till their arrest. 3. Such act of extortion of money and kidnapping for ransom carried out by you and your associates gave panic and terror wave to the general public which is prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. 4. The avowed aims and object of the Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) is to secede the State of Manipur from the union of India and create a Sovereign Independent State of Manipur. For this purpose, the said organization started procuring of arms and ammunitions through foreign countries and recruited youngsters from various communities. In pursuance of your objective, the members of this organization have committed series of heinous crimes like murder, dacoity, robbery, extortion, kidnapping for ransom in different parts of Manipur. The ring leaders have sought foreign assistance and established links with countries like Bangladesh, Myanmar (Burma), Pakistan and other Countries inimical to India and committed series of prejudicial activities affecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India. 5. 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 Communist Party (KCP) as Unlawful Association vide the Gazette of India, Notification under No.S.O.2883(E) dated 13.11.2009. 6. That, on 8.3.2011 at about 6.30 pm you along with your associates namely Smt Thounaojam (N) Chirom (O) Geeta Devi @ Geetanjali, K.Inaocha Singh @ JK and I.Bipin Singh were arrested by a team of District Police, Imphal West in co-ordination with Aizawl Police from Bongkawn area in Aizawl in connection with FIR No.150(12)2008 LLI PS u/s 265/34 IPC & 25(1-B) A Act and brought back to Manipur on 10.3.2011 after getting Transit Warrant from the Magistrate 1st Class Aizawl Court and remanded to Police custody till 22.3.2011. On 22.3.2011 you were produced before the Court for judicial remand but you were formally arrested in connection with FIR No.86(9)2010 NBL PS u/s 365/368/34 IPC & 16 UA(P) A Act and remanded to Police custody till 29.3.2011 and on the same day you were arrested in c/w FIR No.80(7)2010 LLI PS u/s 326/3-7/34 IPC, 25(1-C) A Act & 20 UA(P) A Act and remanded to Police custody till 2.4.2011 and on the same day you were remanded to judicial custody. 7. That, from the points enumerated above, it is clearly seen that you are a dangerous hard core member of the banned organization namely, Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP in short) MTF faction who carried out prejudicial activities which disturbs public order affecting public tranquility. 8. That, in view of your prejudicial activities in the proximate past it is very likely that you would continue to act in the same manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order in case you are released on bail. Hence, the application of normal criminal laws against you will not at all be effective to prevent you from committing such activities. An effective measure to prevent you from committing further prejudicial activities is immediately called for. 9. On the above grounds, I am satisfied that with a view to preventing you from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order it is necessary to detain you and as such I have passed an order directing that you be detained. 10. Copies of the following documents which forms the basis of the grounds of your detention and enclosed herewith for your reference: a) Your extract interrogation statement given before the I.O on 10.3.2011. b) Statement of Hopson Sapam, MPS (P) O/C Lamlai PS recorded under 161 Cr.P.C in C/W FIR No.150(12)2008 LLI PS u/s 265/34 IPC & 25(1-B) A Act. c) Arrest Memo dated 9.3.2011. d) Transit Warrant dated 9.3.2011. e) Notification No. SO 2883 (E) dated 13.11.2009. f) FIR No.86(9)2010 NBL PS u/s 365/368/34 IPC & 16 UA(P) A Act. g) FIR No.80(7)2010 LLI PS u/s 326/3-7/34 IPC, 25(1-C) A Act & 20 UA (P) A Act. h) FIR No.150(12)2008 LLI PS u/s 265/34 IPC & 25(1-B) A Act. i) FIR No.29(5)2008 PS u/s 20 UA(P) A Act. (not included)? f) FIR No.86(9)2010 NBL PS u/s 365/368/34 IPC & 16 UA(P) A Act. g) FIR No.80(7)2010 LLI PS u/s 326/3-7/34 IPC, 25(1-C) A Act & 20 UA (P) A Act. h) FIR No.150(12)2008 LLI PS u/s 265/34 IPC & 25(1-B) A Act. i) FIR No.29(5)2008 PS u/s 20 UA(P) A Act. (not included)? j) Home Department, Government of Manipur Order No.17(1)49/80-H(Pt-I) dated 07th February, 2011. 11. You are hereby informed that you have a right to make representation to the Government of Manipur as well as to the Central Government against this order of detention passed against you and you are hereby given the earliest opportunity for making such representation if you wish to do so. Your representation is to be sent through the 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-110 001 in respect of representation to the Central Government and should be submitted within 3 weeks time from the date of detention. Further, you are hereby informed that you have right to make representation to the detaining authority within 12 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 East District, Manipur through the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa. The representation, if any would be placed before the Advisory Board within 3 weeks time from the date of your detention as the Government is bound under law to produce before the Board for its consideration. 12. You are hereby informed the Advisory Board may call for such information as it may deem necessary from you and if you desire to be heard, in person, you may intimate about it and arrangement may be made to produce you before the Board on the date fixed for the purpose. (M.Lakshmikumar Singh) District Magistrate, Imphal East District 6. After receiving the grounds of detention furnished under the said letter of the District Magistrate, Imphal East dated 19.04.2011 the petitioner-detenu filed representation dated 25.04.2011 to the learned District Magistrate, Manipur East for revocation of the detention order. (M.Lakshmikumar Singh) District Magistrate, Imphal East District 6. After receiving the grounds of detention furnished under the said letter of the District Magistrate, Imphal East dated 19.04.2011 the petitioner-detenu filed representation dated 25.04.2011 to the learned District Magistrate, Manipur East for revocation of the detention order. In the said representation petitioner-detenu also requested the Detaining Authority to supply copies of Police report mentioned in the detention order and also in the grounds of detention so as to enable him to make an effective representations to the State Government as well as to the Central Government. The Detaining Authority/learned District Magistrate, Imphal East, under his letter being No.Cril/NSA/7/2011 dated 27.04.2011 informed the petitioner-detenu that the petitioner's request for furnishing copies of the Police report and other documents and also the request for revocation of the detention order, had not been acceded to by the Detaining Authority as the submissions made therein are not maintainable being devoid of truth/merit. The letter of the District Magistrate dated 27.4.2011 read as follows: No.Cril/NSA/7/2011 Porompat, the 27th April, 2011 To Shri Chirom Herojit Meitei (29 years) NSA detenu of Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa. Subject: Representation dated 25th April 2011 duly forwarded by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Sajiwa. I am to refer to your representation 25th April, 2011 on the above subject and to state that the contents of the representation had been considered carefully. However, your request for furnishing the Police report and other documents cannot be acceded, as the report is "Confidential". Besides, the request for revocation of detention order made by you has not been acceded to by this office as the submissions made therein are not maintainable being devoid of truth/merit. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (M.Lakshmikumar Singh) District Magistrate, Imphal East District. 7. The impugned detention order had been approved by the State Government vide order being No.17(1)64/2011-H dated 26.04.2011 and also confirmed vide order being No.17(1)64/2011-H Imphal, 02.06.2011 and fixed period of detention for 12 months from the date of detention. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (M.Lakshmikumar Singh) District Magistrate, Imphal East District. 7. The impugned detention order had been approved by the State Government vide order being No.17(1)64/2011-H dated 26.04.2011 and also confirmed vide order being No.17(1)64/2011-H Imphal, 02.06.2011 and fixed period of detention for 12 months from the date of detention. The main thrust for assailing the impugned detention order, approval order and confirmation orders in the present writ petition is that because of non furnishing of copies of the documents which formed the basis of the grounds of detention, the right of the petitioner-detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India had been infringed inasmuch as the petitioner-detenu could not file effective representation because of non furnishing of copies of the documents which formed the basis of grounds of detention. 8. In para-9 of the writ petition it is categorically pleaded that the petitioner-detenu was served with the grounds of detention dated 19.04.2011 along with copies of the documents but copy of the FIR No.20 UA(P) A Act which formed the basis of the grounds of detention was not furnished to the petitioner-detenu. One of the grounds, for assailing the detention order mentioned in para 19(d) read as follows: "d) For that the detaining authority failed to supply relied documents." 9. The respondent No.1, District Magistrate filed affidavit in opposition dated 01.12.2011 wherein the District Magistrate is not denying the contents of its letter dated 27.04.2011 which has been quoted above wherein it is stated that the petitioner's request for furnishing the Police report and other documents cannot be acceded to. From the readings of the whole pleadings of the District Magistrate, Imphal East in his affidavit in opposition dated 01.12.2011 and also whole pleadings of petitioner-detenu in the present writ petition, it is clear that copy of the FIR No.29(5)2008 NBL PS under Section 20 UA(P) A Act which formed the basis of the grounds of detention (mentioned in para 10 of the grounds of detention dated 19.04.2011) was not furnished to the petitioner-detenu. 10. In this given fact, Mr.Rajeetchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court, (incidentally one of us, T.NK Singh,J, is party) in Alisha Maram v. District Magistrate, Imphal & Ors: 2011 (2) GLT 466. 10. In this given fact, Mr.Rajeetchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court, (incidentally one of us, T.NK Singh,J, is party) in Alisha Maram v. District Magistrate, Imphal & Ors: 2011 (2) GLT 466. The fact in Alisha Maram's case (supra) is that copies of the FIR which formed the basis of grounds of detention were not furnished to the detenu. This Court in Alisha Maram's case (supra) held that non furnishing of copies of documents which formed the basis of grounds of detention deny the right of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to file effective representation against the detention order. Para-5, 10, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 31, 32 and 33 of the GLT in Alisha Maram's case (supra) read as follows: 11. As there is a disputed question of fact as to whether or not a copy of the report of the FIR case No.326(10)09 PRT was really furnished to the petitioner-detenue while furnishing the copies of the documents which form the basis of the grounds of detention under the said letter of the District Magistrate (detaining authority) dated 23.2.2010 as stated by the District Magistrate, Imphal East in his letter dated 23.3.10 and 23.2.2010, this Court had directed the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-detenue and also the learned Sr. Government Advocate appearing for the respondents to produce the said letters of the District Magistrate dated 23.2.10 and also 23.3.2010 served to the petitioner-detenue along with the relevant Government file before this Court for perusal. 12. On careful perusal of the Government file and also the said letters of the District Magistrate dated 23.2.10 and 23.3.2010, it is crystal clear that the District Magistrate, while serving the grounds of detention along with the copies of the documents which form the basis of the grounds of detention under his letter dated 23.2.10 to the petitioner-detenue, had not furnished the correct copies of the duly filled up printed FIR form of the FIR case No.326(10)2009 PRT PS to the petitioner-detenue; in such situation it is clear that the coverleaf or/back side of the duly printed FIR form of FIR case No.326(10)2009 PRT PS furnished to the petitioner-detenue was not correct. In the copies of the duly filled up printed FIR form of FIR Case No.326(10)2009 PRT PS furnished to the petitioner, the report of the FIR which was copied on the overleaf of the duly filled up printed FIR form was missing. 17. 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. 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 Rattam 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 increased!) deserves no sympathy since its activities have paralyzed 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 set-up, it is essential that at least those safeguards are not denied to the detenus...." (Ref: Para 4 of the SCC in Rattan Singh's case (supra)). 19. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India & Ors: (1995) 4 SCC 51 observed that while discharging constitutional obligation to protect fundamental right of the people, more specifically right to personal liberty, the Court would not be influenced by the nature of the activity of the detenue. The history of liberty is the history of procedural safeguards. The safeguards enshrined in clauses (4) and (5) of the Article 22 are required to be jealously watched and enforced by the Court. 20. The history of liberty is the history of procedural safeguards. The safeguards enshrined in clauses (4) and (5) of the Article 22 are required to be jealously watched and enforced by the Court. 20. 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 detenu is that the petitioner-detenu should be informed the conclusion of facts which form the grounds of detention and 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 Art. 22(5). The first part of Art. 22 cl.(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. 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 detenu is suspended of being engaged in and that will be sufficient to enable him to make a representation setting out this innocent activities to dispel the suspicion against him. Of course if the detenu 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 unprovided 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. 21. 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 unprovided 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. 21. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in Naresh Chandra Ganguli for Shri Ram Prasad Das v. State of West Bengal & Ors: AIR 1959 SC 1335 (V 46 C 188) had considered in threadbare the rights of the detenu 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. 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, to enabling, the person detained to make his representation. It will appear from the paragraph aforesaid that the petitioner intended to proceed to Delhi on October 9, 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. As was observed in the decision of this Court in 1951 SCR 157 at pp. 184 and 185 AIR 1951 SC 157 at p.164(supra) vagueness is a relative term. Its meaning may 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 could 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. Its meaning may 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 could 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. What may be said to be vague in one case, may not be so in another, and it could 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 cl.(a) of Section 3(1) of the Act. 23. It is fairly well settled that the procedural safeguards for protection of the petitioner-detenue either under the Constitution or the NSA should be jealously guarded and in case of failure to do so the continued detention of the petitioner-detenue even if detained under the valid detention order, shall become illegal because of the subsequent failure on the part of the detaining authority to follow scrupulously the procedural safeguards. 25. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in S.Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab: AIR 1964 SC 72 (V 51 C 7) held that- ...The Constitution enshrines and guarantees the rule of law and Art 226 is designed to ensure that each and every authority in the State, including the Government acts bona fide and within the limits of its power and we consider that when a Court is satisfied that there is an abuse or misuse of power and its jurisdiction is invoked, it is incumbent on the Court to afford justice to the individual. It is with these considerations in mind that we approach the facts of this case. 26. The Apex Court Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal : (2002) 1 SCC held that - ... It is with these considerations in mind that we approach the facts of this case. 26. The Apex Court Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal : (2002) 1 SCC held that - ... Time and again this Court has reminded that the power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to advance justice and not to thwart it (vide State of U.P v. District Judge, Unnao (1984) 2 SCC 673 . The very purpose of such constitutional powers being conferred on the High Courts is that no man should be subject to injustice by violating the law. The look out of the High Court is, therefore, not merely to pick out any error of law through an academic angle but to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any erroneous interpretation of law. If justice became the by-product of an erroneous view of law the High Court is not expected to erase such justice in the name of correcting the error of law. (Emphasis supplied) 31. For the foregoing discussion and the decisions of the Apex Court regarding the responsibility of the bureaucrats or/State Government to place the true and relevant facts by filing proper affidavit so as enable the Court to decide its constitutional duty, we are sorry in the given case to observe that the concerned authority of the State Government is not placing the true facts as to the furnishing of the report of the said FIR No.326(10) 2009 PRT PS to the petitioner-detenue. We also reiterate that the fact the District Magistrate (detaining authority) has failed to furnish copies of the documents which form the grounds of detention inasmuch as only the incompletely duly filled up printed FIR form of the FIR case No.326(10) 2009 PRT PS was furnished to the petitioner-detenue. 32. Situated thus we are left with the unavoidable conclusion that the rights of the petitioner-detenue guaranteed under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been infringed; as a result the continued detention of the petitioner-detenue, even if detained under a valid detention order, becomes illegal for failure of the detaining authority to follow scrupulously the procedural safeguards provided to the petitioner-detenue both under the Constitution of India and the NSA. 33. 33. For the reasons discussed above, the impugned detention order dated 19.02.2010, the approval order dated 02.03.2010 and the confirmation order dated 07.04.2010 are hereby quashed. The petitioner-detenue, Mrs. Alisha Maram @ Thabalei, is set at liberty forthwith if she is, otherwise, not required in connection with any other cases. 11. We have given our anxious considerations to the submission of learned counsel for the parties vis--vis earlier decision of this Court in Alisha Maram's case (supra) and are of considered view that the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Alisha Maram's case (supra). For the reasons mentioned in Alisha Maram's case (supra) we are of firm view that the right of the petitioner-detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India had been infringed; as a result, the impugned detention order, approval order and the confirmation orders are required to be interfered with. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 16.04.2011, approval order dated 26.04.2011 and confirmation order dated 02.06.2011 are hereby quashed. Petitioner-detenu namely, Shri Chirom Herojit Meitei @ Abung (29 years), s/o Ch.Shyam Singh of Waheng Khuman Mamang Leikai, PS Wangoi, Bishnupur District, Manipur, be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case. The writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed