Preventive detention and constitutional safeguards: Article 22 governs detention, while disclosure limits under section 14 were struck down in part.

Preventive detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was analysed against Articles 19(1)(d), 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Article 19 was treated as protecting specified civil liberties rather than barring lawful detention, and Article 21 as requiring procedure established by law rather than a general due process guarantee. Article 22 was regarded as the special constitutional code for preventive detention, including safeguards on duration, disclosure of grounds and representation, so the Act was sustained in substance despite differing views on section 12. Section 14 was found ultra vires to the extent it barred disclosure of the grounds to court and impaired the right to make an effective representation.

---

---

Issues: Whether preventive detention under the impugned Act violated the freedom of movement guarantee under article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution; whether article 21 imported a broader due process or natural justice requirement beyond procedure established by law; and whether the safeguards and restrictions in the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, especially the provisions on prolonged detention and nondisclosure of grounds, were valid under article 22.

Analysis: The competing opinions treated article 19 as protecting specified civil liberties of a free citizen and not as a general guarantee against lawful detention, while article 21 was construed by the majority of opinions as a distinct guarantee of life and personal liberty subject to a procedure established by law, not as a full due process clause. Article 22 was read as the special constitutional scheme for preventive detention, containing specific safeguards on the duration of detention, communication of grounds, representation, and parliamentary power to prescribe circumstances and classes of cases for longer detention without an advisory board.

Conclusion: Preventive detention was held not to be invalid merely because it curtailed movement, and the Act was sustained in substance, though the opinions differed on the exact scope of article 21 and on the validity of section 12.

Issue: Whether section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, which restricted disclosure of the grounds of detention and related materials, was constitutionally valid.

Analysis: The judges who dealt with this provision held that the section materially impaired the detained person's ability to enforce the constitutional right to receive the grounds of detention and make an effective representation, and also obstructed judicial review under article 32. It was treated as going beyond the permitted withholding of facts and as preventing disclosure of the very grounds required by article 22(5).

Conclusion: Section 14 was held to be ultra vires to the extent that it barred disclosure of the grounds to the Court and interfered with enforcement of the constitutional right of representation.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed overall, and the detention order was not set aside on the principal challenge to the Act, although one provision was struck down in part and the opinions diverged on the validity of section 12.

---