Emergency detention law bars habeas corpus challenges based on illegality or mala fides while Article 21 enforcement is suspended.

During suspension of enforcement of Article 21 under a Presidential order under Article 359(1), a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 challenging preventive detention on grounds of illegality, non-compliance with the detention law, mala fides, or extraneous considerations is barred because it is, in substance, an attempt to enforce the suspended right to personal liberty. Section 16A(9) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act was treated as an evidentiary restriction operating within the emergency framework, keeping grounds and materials confidential without destroying the court's constitutional jurisdiction. The emergency constitutional and statutory scheme was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, during the operation of a Presidential order under Article 359(1) suspending enforcement of Article 21, a petition for habeas corpus under Article 226 challenging preventive detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act on the ground that the detention order is not under or in compliance with the Act, or is vitiated by mala fides or extraneous considerations, is maintainable; and (ii) whether section 16A(9) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 is constitutionally valid.

Issue (i): Whether, during the operation of a Presidential order under Article 359(1) suspending enforcement of Article 21, a petition for habeas corpus under Article 226 challenging preventive detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act on the ground that the detention order is not under or in compliance with the Act, or is vitiated by mala fides or extraneous considerations, is maintainable.

Analysis: A Presidential order under Article 359(1) suspending the right to move any court for enforcement of the rights mentioned in the order withdraws the detenu's locus standi to seek release by enforcing the protected fundamental right of personal liberty. The challenge that the detention is without authority of law, not in conformity with the Act, or tainted by mala fides is, in substance, a challenge to the deprivation of personal liberty protected by Article 21. The order does not amend Article 226, but it bars the remedy where the relief sought is enforcement of the suspended right. The executive remains bound by law, but during the suspension period the court cannot entertain a habeas corpus petition to test the detention on those grounds.

Conclusion: The petition for habeas corpus was not maintainable on those grounds, and the detention challenge was barred.

Issue (ii): Whether section 16A(9) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 is constitutionally valid.

Analysis: Section 16A(9) was treated as a rule of evidence operating during the emergency regime and in aid of the Presidential order. It made the grounds, information, and material relating to specially declared detentions confidential and deemed them to concern matters of State. In the context of the suspended enforcement of Article 21 and the curtailed judicial scrutiny, the provision did not impermissibly trench upon Article 226. It did not abolish the High Court's constitutional power, but regulated disclosure in a manner consistent with the emergency framework.

Conclusion: Section 16A(9) was held constitutionally valid.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional and statutory emergency scheme was upheld, preventing habeas corpus challenges to preventive detention on the stated grounds during the operation of the Presidential order, and sustaining the impugned statutory restriction on disclosure.

Ratio Decidendi: When a Presidential order under Article 359(1) suspends enforcement of Article 21, a habeas corpus petition that in substance seeks release from preventive detention on the ground of illegality, mala fides, or non-compliance with the detention law is barred, and a contemporaneous evidentiary restriction enacted in aid of that suspension is valid if it operates within the emergency framework rather than destroying the court's constitutional jurisdiction.

---