Preventive detention reporting "forthwith" means reasonable promptitude, not instant compliance, where no prejudice is shown.

In preventive detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, the statutory requirement to report the detention order "forthwith" to the State Government was construed as requiring reasonable promptitude, not instantaneous action. A report made the next day was treated as compliant because the short interval caused no prejudice and did not impair timely governmental scrutiny. The remaining objections, including alleged breach of the reporting framework, delay between incidents and detention, prompt disposal of representation, limited reliance on material, and the existence of prosecution, were found insufficient to invalidate the detention. The detention order was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the District Magistrate complied with the requirement under Section 3(3) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 to report forthwith to the State Government the making of the detention order. (ii) Whether the other objections to the detention, including alleged breach of Section 3(4) and the ancillary grounds relating to proximity, representation, supply of material, and availability of prosecution, invalidated the detention.

Issue (i): Whether the District Magistrate complied with the requirement under Section 3(3) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 to report forthwith to the State Government the making of the detention order.

Analysis: The expression "forthwith" in a preventive detention statute must be construed strictly, but not with mechanical literalness so as to demand instantaneous compliance. The statutory scheme of approvals and reports shows that the report is intended to enable prompt governmental scrutiny within the limited period available for approval. The controlling test is whether the report was made with reasonable promptitude and without avoidable delay. On the facts, the report was made the day after the order in practical effect, and the short interval did not prejudice the Government's ability to consider approval within time.

Conclusion: The requirement of Section 3(3) was complied with and there was no invalid delay in reporting the detention order.

Issue (ii): Whether the other objections to the detention, including alleged breach of Section 3(4) and the ancillary grounds relating to proximity, representation, supply of material, and availability of prosecution, invalidated the detention.

Analysis: The period for the State Government's report to the Central Government under Section 3(4) runs from approval of the detention order, not from the date of the District Magistrate's order. The gap between the incidents and the detention order was explained by intervening prosecution proceedings. The prompt disposal of the representation did not by itself show non-application of mind. The affidavit showed that no material beyond the grounds and particulars was relied upon, and the possibility of prosecution did not by itself defeat the detention.

Conclusion: None of the remaining grounds established illegality in the detention order.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was sustained, and the petition challenging it failed in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention cases, a statutory direction to act "forthwith" requires action with reasonable despatch and without avoidable delay, not instantaneous compliance, provided no prejudice is caused and the statutory safeguard is not undermined.

---