Preventive detention law bars prior disclosure of detention grounds and rejects pre-execution challenge where delay stems from evasion.

Preventive detention law does not require prior supply of the detention order, grounds, or supporting materials before execution, and Article 22 does not create such a pre-arrest entitlement. The Right to Information Act cannot override that scheme, so a proposed detenu has no enforceable right to obtain those documents in advance. Pre-execution challenge to a detention order is available only in exceptional cases, such as lack of jurisdiction, wrong person, wrong purpose, or vague and extraneous grounds. Where delay in execution results from the proposed detenu's own evasion of process, that delay does not by itself snap the live link or justify quashing the order at the pre-execution stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a person against whom a preventive detention order is passed is entitled, before execution of the order, to obtain a copy of the detention order or the grounds and supporting materials under the Right to Information Act or otherwise. (ii) Whether the detention order could be challenged at the pre-execution stage on the ground of delay and alleged snapping of the live link, where the person concerned had evaded the process of law and the authorities had initiated action for non-appearance.

Issue (i): Whether a person against whom a preventive detention order is passed is entitled, before execution of the order, to obtain a copy of the detention order or the grounds and supporting materials under the Right to Information Act or otherwise.

Analysis: The legal framework under preventive detention and Article 22 of the Constitution does not require prior supply of the detention order or the grounds before execution. The right to be informed of grounds arises after detention, and the Right to Information Act cannot override that scheme. The detention laws also do not cast any duty on the authority to furnish a copy of the detention order to the proposed detenu before arrest. A limited pre-execution challenge may be entertained by the Court, but that does not create a corresponding right to prior disclosure.

Conclusion: The proposed detenu had no enforceable right to obtain a copy of the detention order or grounds before execution, and the contention based on the Right to Information Act failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the detention order could be challenged at the pre-execution stage on the ground of delay and alleged snapping of the live link, where the person concerned had evaded the process of law and the authorities had initiated action for non-appearance.

Analysis: Pre-execution interference with a preventive detention order is available only in exceptional and limited situations, such as lack of jurisdiction, wrong person, wrong purpose, or vague and extraneous grounds. Where the non-execution of the order is attributable to the person's own conduct in absconding or evading arrest, the delay does not by itself snap the live link. A person who has evaded the process of law cannot rely on that very conduct to invalidate the detention order at the pre-execution stage. On the facts found, the petitioner had avoided summons and had not shown any exceptional reason to justify pre-execution interference.

Conclusion: The challenge on the ground of delay and loss of live link was rejected, and the detention order was not liable to be quashed at the pre-execution stage.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners failed to establish any basis for pre-execution interference with the detention order, and the writ petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order cannot be quashed at the pre-execution stage merely because time has elapsed, if the delay in execution is attributable to the proposed detenu's own evasion of the process of law; nor does the legal scheme confer a right to prior supply of the detention order or grounds before execution.

---