Habeas corpus and emergency detention: res judicata did not bar review, and classification of foreigners was upheld.

A prior habeas corpus dismissal in the High Court did not bar a fresh Article 32 petition by res judicata or constructive res judicata, because the constitutional claim of illegal detention remained open for merits review. President's emergency suspension orders under Article 359 were upheld as non-discriminatory, since treating foreigners as a separate class satisfied intelligible differentia and rational nexus with national security objectives. The detention order under the Foreigners Act was also sustained, as the statutory power was construed broadly and the material did not establish mala fides or abuse of power.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the earlier dismissal of a habeas corpus petition in the High Court barred the present petition under the doctrine of res judicata or constructive res judicata; (ii) whether the President's orders suspending the right to move the Court for enforcement of fundamental rights, including the order applying to foreigners, were invalid as discriminatory or otherwise contrary to Article 14; and (iii) whether the detention order under the Foreigners Act was vitiated by mala fides or abuse of power.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier dismissal of a habeas corpus petition in the High Court barred the present petition under the doctrine of res judicata or constructive res judicata.

Analysis: The prior habeas corpus order was treated as not operating as a judgment in the sense required for res judicata, and the special constitutional character of a habeas corpus remedy for protection of personal liberty was emphasized. Successive petitions were distinguished from ordinary writ litigation, and it was held that the right under Article 32 could not be curtailed by importing constructive res judicata so as to prevent examination of a claim of illegal detention on the merits.

Conclusion: The earlier High Court order did not operate as res judicata, and the present petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the President's orders suspending the right to move the Court for enforcement of fundamental rights, including the order applying to foreigners, were invalid as discriminatory or otherwise contrary to Article 14.

Analysis: The orders made under Article 359 were held to be valid if they satisfied constitutional requirements and were not discriminatory. The classification of foreigners as a separate class was upheld on the basis of intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the object of protecting national security during emergency conditions. The Court also rejected the contention that the order could not validly operate on different classes of persons or that it was retrospective merely because it affected petitions filed after its issuance.

Conclusion: The President's orders were not violative of Article 14 and were not invalid on the grounds urged.

Issue (iii): Whether the detention order under the Foreigners Act was vitiated by mala fides or abuse of power.

Analysis: The detention power under Section 3(2)(g) of the Foreigners Act was construed broadly, and the reasons for detention were held not to be confined to the narrower purpose suggested by the petitioner. On the material placed, the Court found no basis to hold that the detention was motivated by mala fides or that the statutory power had been abused.

Conclusion: The detention order was not shown to be mala fide or otherwise invalid on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed on all substantive grounds and the detention was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A prior habeas corpus dismissal does not bar a fresh Article 32 petition by res judicata where the constitutional claim of illegal detention remains open, and a classification under an emergency-suspension order will be sustained if it rests on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object of the order.

---