Preventive detention and territorial jurisdiction: continued confinement and inadequate communication can invalidate detention under constitutional safeguards.

Continued confinement of a detenu within the High Court's territorial limits can form part of the cause of action under Article 226, so a habeas corpus petition remains maintainable there. Preventive detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 is vulnerable where the detention order, grounds and supporting affidavit disclose shifting or inconsistent bases, showing non-application of mind. The constitutional requirement of effective communication under Article 22(5) is also not met if material relied on is not supplied in a language understood by the detenu, including Bengali where that is the language known to him. The detention was stated to be invalid on both grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the habeas corpus petition when the detenu was confined within its territorial limits; (ii) whether the detention order was vitiated by non-application of mind and failure to supply the detenu with the necessary material in a language understood by him.

Issue (i): whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the habeas corpus petition when the detenu was confined within its territorial limits.

Analysis: Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a High Court may exercise jurisdiction where the cause of action wholly or in part arises within its territory. The detenu was admittedly lodged in Siliguri jail within the Court's territorial jurisdiction, and continued confinement there was a material fact supporting the relief sought. In matters of habeas corpus, the place where the deprivation of liberty continues can constitute part of the cause of action.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the Court had territorial jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): whether the detention order was vitiated by non-application of mind and failure to supply the detenu with the necessary material in a language understood by him.

Analysis: The detention order, the grounds of detention, and the affidavit-in-opposition disclosed inconsistent and shifting foundations for detention, creating a clear case of non-application of mind. Preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 must rest on a consistent and legally permissible basis. In addition, Article 22(5) requires communication of the grounds and material so as to enable an effective representation. Since the detenu knew Bengali and some relied upon documents were not supplied in Bengali, the constitutional safeguard was not properly satisfied.

Conclusion: The detention was invalid on both grounds.

Final Conclusion: The habeas corpus petition succeeded and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in another case.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, continued confinement within the territorial limits of a High Court can constitute part of the cause of action under Article 226, and detention is liable to be struck down where the authority's basis shifts between the order, grounds, and affidavit or where the detenu is denied effective communication of the material necessary for representation.

---