Preventive detention law upheld where amended statute continued confirmed orders and detention grounds were read as a whole.

Section 3 of the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1952 was construed as validly continuing confirmed detention orders by reading the amendment into the principal Act, and it was held to be intra vires. The Court found no unconstitutional discrimination, as the provision applied to a rational class of detenus whose cases had already been considered by an Advisory Board, and detention remained subject to revocation or modification by the executive. The article 22 challenge also failed because Parliament could prescribe a maximum period of preventive detention for such cases by law. In a separate challenge, the first ground of detention was read as part of the overall allegation and was held relevant to the statutory grounds of detention.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 3 of the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1952 was intra vires and validly extended the detention orders covered by it; (ii) whether the first ground of detention in one petition was irrelevant to the statutory grounds of detention.

Issue (i): Whether section 3 of the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1952 was intra vires and validly extended the detention orders covered by it.

Analysis: The amended Act was construed as incorporating the earlier statute as amended, so that the expression "principal Act" had to be read in the light of the amended scheme. On that construction, section 3 did more than merely prolong the life of the parent Act: it continued confirmed detention orders in force for the extended life of the principal Act. The Court also held that the provision did not create unconstitutional discrimination, because it classified detenus on a rational basis depending on whether their cases had already been considered by an Advisory Board, and because the duration of detention remained subject to governmental power to revoke or modify the order. The challenge under article 22 also failed, since Parliament was competent to prescribe a maximum period for a class of cases and could itself make the necessary provision by law.

Conclusion: Section 3 was held to be intra vires and constitutionally valid, and the detentions were not bad on the grounds considered.

Issue (ii): Whether the first ground of detention in one petition was irrelevant to the statutory grounds of detention.

Analysis: The grounds were read as a whole. On that reading, the challenged material was treated as part of the larger allegation that the detenu sought to set up a parallel authority and used coercive methods to enforce obedience. The ground was therefore not confined to matters outside the statutory basis of detention.

Conclusion: The first ground of detention was held to be relevant and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional attack on section 3 and the specific challenge to the detention ground were rejected, while the remaining issues in the connected matters were left for further hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: An amended statute must be read as incorporating the amendment into the principal Act for construing the continued operation of detention orders, and Parliament may validly prescribe a maximum period of preventive detention for a rational class of cases subject to constitutional limits on discrimination and procedure.

---