Preventive detention safeguards and habeas corpus review limited where detention was lawful on the date of hearing.

Detention made to prevent activity prejudicial to the security of the State was upheld where the original record showed that the detention order and the related direction under the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act had been made and explained to the detenu on the recorded dates. The Court held that the safeguards under Section 8(1) and Section 10 were inapplicable because disclosure of grounds was restricted by the public-interest direction. It further held that habeas corpus relief must be tested on the date of hearing, so an earlier alleged illegality did not justify release if the detention was lawful when considered by the Court. Release was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was illegal because the detenu had allegedly been deprived of liberty before the order was made and whether the detention was vitiated for want of proper communication and explanation of the detention order and grounds.

Analysis: The order of detention and the order under Section 8 read with Section 13-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964 were found from the original records to have been made and explained to the detenu on the dates recorded by the authorities. The Court held that, in view of the detention being made to prevent activity prejudicial to the security of the State and the public-interest direction against disclosure of grounds, the safeguards under Section 8(1) and Section 10 were inapplicable. The Court further held that in habeas corpus proceedings the legality of detention must be tested on the date of hearing, and if the detention is then lawful, relief cannot be granted merely on the basis of an earlier alleged illegality. The Court declined to express any opinion on the effect of withdrawal of the earlier petition.

Conclusion: The detention was held not to be contrary to law and the request for release was rejected.

---