Article 226 jurisdiction remains available for temporary release of detenu; challenge to statutory curtailment did not survive as framed.

A constitutional challenge to Section 12(6) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act was held not to survive in the form presented, because the High Court's Article 226 jurisdiction was not treated as having been curtailed. The analysis noted that the Supreme Court had already recognised the High Court's power to order temporary release of a detenu under Article 226, while emphasising that such power must be exercised sparingly. The matter was therefore directed to be placed before the roster Bench for hearing on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the constitutional challenge to Section 12(6) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, could survive in view of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The challenge was founded on the premise that Article 226 forms part of the basic structure and that the statutory provision could not curtail that jurisdiction. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had already recognised that the power of the High Court under Article 226 to direct temporary release of a detenu is not taken away, though it is to be exercised sparingly. On that basis, the constitutional challenge was treated as not surviving in the form in which it was presented.

Conclusion: The challenge to Section 12(6) did not survive as framed, and the matter was directed to be placed before the roster Bench for hearing on merits.

---