TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a preventive detention order could be validly served on a person already in jail custody under preventive/security proceedings. (ii) Whether the impugned detention order was vitiated because some antecedent facts in the detention schedule overlapped with the earlier revoked detention order. (iii) Whether the incidents and allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the detention schedule were irrelevant to public order and therefore could not sustain the detention.
Issue (i): Whether a preventive detention order could be validly served on a person already in jail custody under preventive/security proceedings.
Analysis: The controlling principle is that custody by itself does not disable the detaining authority from making or serving a detention order. The decisive considerations are the nature and duration of the existing custody, the likelihood of release, and whether relevant material exists for the authority to form subjective satisfaction that detention would be necessary upon release. A short and terminable custody, particularly one under security proceedings, does not bar preventive detention where the antecedent conduct shows a real possibility of prejudicial activity after release.
Conclusion: The detention order was not invalid merely because it was served while the petitioner was in jail custody.
Issue (ii): Whether the impugned detention order was vitiated because some antecedent facts in the detention schedule overlapped with the earlier revoked detention order.
Analysis: The earlier incidents referred to in the schedule were treated as background and not as the operative grounds of the fresh detention. The actual basis of the impugned order was the later incident and the surrounding particulars showing continuing prejudicial conduct and the likelihood of future disturbance of public order. Since the detention was founded on fresh and proximate material, the presence of earlier antecedents in the narration did not make the order bad as a whole.
Conclusion: The impugned detention order was not vitiated by reference to the earlier history of detention.
Issue (iii): Whether the incidents and allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the detention schedule were irrelevant to public order and therefore could not sustain the detention.
Analysis: The paragraph was read as part of the sequence of incidents showing the petitioner's role as a principal instigator in student agitation that escalated into violence, damage to property, stone-pelting, looting, and curfew. The question was not tested by objective proof in the manner of a criminal trial, but on the basis of the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction. On that basis, the allegations were neither vague nor irrelevant and were germane to the maintenance of public order.
Conclusion: The challenge to the relevance of paragraph 10 failed.
Final Conclusion: The preventive detention was upheld, and the habeas corpus petition failed on all substantive grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention may be sustained on relevant and proximate material even where the detenu is in short-term custody, and earlier background incidents do not vitiate the order if the detention is founded on fresh grounds showing a reasonable likelihood of prejudicial conduct affecting public order.
TaxTMI 
