Prior habeas corpus challenges preserved the right to contest detention as the foundation of forfeiture proceedings.

A prior challenge to a detention order prevented the detenu and his relatives from being treated as having waived the right to question that detention in later forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMA. Because habeas corpus petitions had already been filed during the detention's subsistence, and their disposal did not amount to a merits finding upholding the detention, the detention could still be assailed as the foundation of the forfeiture action. The Supreme Court distinguished cases where no challenge was made while the detention continued and held that the forfeiture proceedings could not survive on the footing urged by the appellants.

---

---

Issues: Whether a detenu and his relatives could, in proceedings under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, challenge the validity of the detention order on the ground that it was illegal and thereby seek to invalidate the forfeiture proceedings.

Analysis: The detention order had been challenged when it was in force, including by habeas corpus petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. One petition ended as infructuous after release, and the other was disposed of without an adjudication on the merits of the detention because the detenu had been released. The Court distinguished this situation from a case where no challenge had been made during the subsistence of the detention. It held that the existence of earlier challenges meant that the detenu had not forfeited the right to assail the detention as the foundation of the forfeiture action. The Court also noted that the earlier disposal of the habeas corpus proceedings did not amount to a finding upholding the detention.

Conclusion: The challenge to the detention was not barred, and the forfeiture proceedings could not survive on the footing urged by the appellants.

---