Preventive detention of foreigners upheld where used to secure expulsion, with expulsion and extradition treated as distinct processes.

Section 3(1)(b) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was treated as within Union legislative competence and as consistent with Articles 14, 21 and 22 because preventive detention connected with foreigners and foreign affairs fell within the Union List and the classification of foreigners was held reasonable. Detention of a foreigner to make arrangements for expulsion was held lawful and preventive in character, including anticipation of the Central Government's expulsion order where needed to ensure effective execution. The allegation of mala fides failed because expulsion and extradition were distinct processes, and the detention was not shown to be used to secure extradition instead of expulsion.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 3(1)(b) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was within legislative competence and consistent with Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether detention of a foreigner under section 3(1)(b) for making arrangements for expulsion was valid and could be ordered in anticipation of an expulsion order by the Central Government; (iii) Whether the detention was vitiated by mala fides or by an attempted use of detention to secure extradition instead of expulsion.

Issue (i): Whether section 3(1)(b) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was within legislative competence and consistent with Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The power to legislate for preventive detention connected with foreigners and foreign affairs was held to fall within the Union List entries dealing with foreign affairs and preventive detention connected therewith. Articles 21 and 22 were held not to invalidate the provision because the Constitution permits deprivation of liberty according to procedure established by law, and foreigner detention for the purpose stated was treated as falling within preventive detention. The classification of foreigners for the purpose of the Foreigners Act and the Preventive Detention Act was held to be reasonable and not arbitrary.

Conclusion: The provision was held to be intra vires and not violative of Articles 14, 21 or 22.

Issue (ii): Whether detention of a foreigner under section 3(1)(b) for making arrangements for expulsion was valid and could be ordered in anticipation of an expulsion order by the Central Government.

Analysis: Detention for the purpose of making arrangements for expulsion was held to be preventive in character because it served to prevent evasion or breach of the proposed expulsion order and to secure its effective execution. The Court treated the State Government's power to detain as expressly conferred by the statute even though the actual expulsion order could be made only by the Central Government. The power was held to include authority to act in anticipation of final central action where necessary to make the expulsion effective.

Conclusion: Such detention was held to be lawful and within the scope of the statute.

Issue (iii): Whether the detention was vitiated by mala fides or by an attempted use of detention to secure extradition instead of expulsion.

Analysis: The Court found no material showing that the detention order itself was made for an extraneous purpose or that the Government changed its mind after the foreign consular communication. Expulsion and extradition were held to be distinct legal processes. The Foreigners Act gave the executive an unfettered power to expel, while extradition required compliance with the Extradition Act. The mere fact that extradition might have been sought by a foreign State did not compel the Government to proceed only under extradition law or render the detention mala fide. The person expelled, if expelled under the Foreigners Act, had to leave as a free man and could not be handed over under arrest unless extradition law was followed.

Conclusion: The allegation of bad faith failed, and the detention was not invalid on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme permitting preventive detention of a foreigner for the purpose of arranging expulsion was upheld, the distinction between expulsion and extradition was maintained, and the petition was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A law authorising preventive detention of a foreigner for the purpose of making arrangements for expulsion is constitutionally valid where it falls within Union legislative competence, is a reasonable means of securing effective expulsion, and is not converted into extradition unless the extradition procedure is separately invoked.

---