Preventive detention legality turns on the detention in force at return, and a fresh order may supersede a defective earlier order.

In habeas corpus proceedings against preventive detention, the controlling question is the legality of detention at the time of the return, not only at the date of the petition. The Court held that, where the earlier detention order was defective on formal grounds, the detaining authority could supersede it and issue a fresh order under the statutory power to revoke, modify, or make a new order, provided there was no bad faith. A fresh detention order was therefore not invalid merely because an earlier order had already been assailed, and release was declined on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in habeas corpus proceedings challenging preventive detention, the Court may regard a fresh detention order made after an earlier order was assailed, and whether a fresh order can validly rest on the same grounds where the earlier order was defective only on formal grounds.

Analysis: The petition was founded on alleged vagueness in the original grounds and on the absence of fresh grounds for the later order. The Court held that in habeas corpus proceedings the controlling question is the legality of detention at the time of the return, not merely at the date of the petition. It also relied on the statutory power to revoke or modify a detention order and to make a fresh order under the Act. On that basis, a detaining authority is not precluded, in the absence of bad faith, from superseding a defective order and making a fresh order which complies with the law, even if the grounds previously existing are the same.

Conclusion: A fresh detention order could not be invalidated merely because an earlier order had been challenged, and the Court declined to order release on that basis.

---