Preventive detention and criminal prosecution are distinct, so failed or unavailable prosecution does not by itself invalidate detention.

Preventive detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 operates as a preventive measure based on the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction and is distinct from criminal prosecution. The availability of a possible prosecution, or the possibility that evidence may be insufficient or witnesses may be reluctant to testify because of fear, does not by itself invalidate detention where past conduct indicates a reasonable likelihood of future prejudicial conduct. Conduct affecting essential supplies and services was treated as relevant to the statutory purpose. The challenge of mala fides was rejected because the record did not show that the detention order was improper merely because prosecution was not pursued.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order of preventive detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 was invalid or mala fide merely because the same conduct might also have been the subject of criminal prosecution.

Analysis: The detention power under section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 is a preventive jurisdiction based on the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction, and it is distinct from the jurisdiction of criminal courts to try and punish offences. The fact that the available evidence may be insufficient for a successful prosecution, or that witnesses may be unwilling to depose because of fear, does not bar recourse to preventive detention if the past conduct gives rise to a reasonable likelihood of prejudicial future conduct. Conduct disrupting essential supplies and services was held to be germane to the statutory object. The record also did not support the allegation that the order was mala fide merely because prosecution was not pursued.

Conclusion: The detention order was valid and the challenge based on the availability or failure of criminal prosecution was rejected.

---