Case Note & Summary
The case involved a habeas corpus petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the detention of Kshetra Gogoi under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The petitioner was initially arrested on 24 April 1968 under Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, but that order lapsed for lack of timely government approval. He was then re-detained on 29 August 1968 under a second order, which he challenged in the High Court under Article 226 and later in the Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court petition was pending, a third detention order dated 28 August 1969 was served on him just one day before the expiry of the second order's 12-month maximum period. The third order's grounds were almost identical to the second, except for an additional allegation that the petitioner, while in preventive custody, maintained links with underground associates through friends and relatives. The core legal issue was whether this third order complied with Section 13(2) of the Act, which permits a fresh detention order only if fresh facts arise after the expiry of the previous order. The petitioner argued that the additional ground referred to conduct during custody, not after expiry, and thus no fresh facts existed. The State contended that the fresh order was valid based on the new allegation. The Court analyzed Section 13(2) and Section 11-A(2), emphasizing that the legislative intent was to limit detention to 12 months on the same set of grounds. Relying on Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack, the Court held that facts arising during detention are irrelevant under Section 13(2). Since the third order was passed before the previous order expired and the alleged links occurred while in custody, there were no fresh facts after expiry. The Court found the order violated Section 13(2) and was thus invalid. The petition was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be released immediately.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Fresh Order After Expiry - Section 13(2), Preventive Detention Act, 1950 - A fresh detention order under Section 13(2) can be made only where fresh facts have arisen after the date of revocation or expiry of the previous order; facts occurring during the period of detention are irrelevant. The fresh order dated 28-8-1969 was passed a day before expiry of the previous order and was based on an additional ground that the detenu maintained links with underground associates while in custody; this did not constitute a fresh fact arising after expiry, and the order was invalid. Held: The order violating Section 13(2) was illegal and detention illegal, and the petitioner was set at liberty. (Paras Not Numbered) B) Preventive Detention - Maximum Period - Section 11-A(2), Preventive Detention Act, 1950 - The Parliament intended that the maximum period of detention under Section 3 is 12 months, after which the order lapses. This provision, read with Section 13(2), ensures that no person can be detained beyond 12 months on the same grounds unless fresh facts arise after expiry. (Paras Not Numbered)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the detention order dated 28 August 1969 was valid under section 13(2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the detention order dated 28 August 1969 violated Section 13(2), as no fresh facts arose after the expiry of the previous order; the order was invalid and the detention illegal. The petition was allowed and the petitioner was directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 13(2) requires fresh facts after expiry of previous detention
- facts arising during detention period are irrelevant
- maximum detention period under Section 11-A(2) is 12 months
- fresh order on same grounds invalid
