As per case facts, the appellant was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, based on grounds alleging activities prejudicial to public order, including vilifying the Prime Minister, inciting against ... a pact, and intending to instigate plans endangering the Prime Minister's safety. The High Court upheld the detention, considering the specific allegations as evidence rather than core grounds. The appellant appealed, contending that one of the grounds was vague, devoid of particulars, and lacked rational connection to the Act's objects, thus impairing his right to effective representation. The question arose whether the High Court correctly distinguished between "grounds" and "evidence" and if the provided particulars were sufficient for effective representation. Finally, the Supreme Court held that while the High Court's distinction between preamble and grounds was erroneous, the overall grounds were not vague or irrelevant to public order, allowing for effective representation. The appeal and application were dismissed.