J.D.JAIN J. - (1.)THIS is a petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for release of the petitioner who has been detained pursuant to an order dated 20th, July, 1981, made by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi under sub-section (2) of Section (3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The said order was duly approved by the Administrator on 27th July, 1981, as required by sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act. The petitioner was arrested on 24th July, 1981, when the grounds of detention were served on him. A reference was made to the Advisory Board as contemplated by Section 10 of the Act and the petitioner was heard in person by the Advisory Board on 21st August, 1981. Eventually the detention of the petitioner was confirmed vide order dated 28th August, 1981, by the Delhi Administration on receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner.
(2.)SINCE the petitioner was unrepresented, Mr. M. L. Jain, Advocate, was appointed Amicus Curiae to represent him.
The Amicus Curiae has assailed the order of detention on various grounds. At the very outset he has urged that there is no compliance with the constitutional and statutory safeguards as regards (i) communication of the grounds on which the order of detention has been made; and (ii) opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention. Relying upon Smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India and others, AIR 1981 S.C. 431, he has convessed with considerable fervour that the grounds communicated to the detenu must reveal the whole of the factual material considered by the detaining authority and not merely the inferences of fact arrived at by the detaining authority. An opportunity to make a representation against the order of detention necessarily implies that the detenu has been informed of all that has been taken into account against him in arriving at a decision to detain him. If the detenu is not so informed, the opportunity so solemnly guaranteed by the Constitution becomes reduced to an exercise in futility.

(3.)THE precise contention of the Amicus Curiae is that while serving him with the grounds of detention the petitioner was simply delivered a statement containing synopsis of criminal cases in which the petitioner had been tried or he was facing trial but copies of the F.I.R. were not furnished to him. He was thus prejudiced in making an effective representation against his detention.