Preventive detention without statutory facts held to be abuse of power, with relief granted for wrongful detention.

Preventive detention could not be sustained where the record did not establish incitement to disaffection, inducement to breach discipline, or any other statutory ingredient of the alleged offences. The material also failed to show that the appellant was a goonda or habitually engaged in prejudicial public-order activity under the preventive detention law. As the Advisory Board found no sufficient cause and the detention was revoked, the Court treated the respondents as having acted on unsupported facts and held that the detention and related criminal action amounted to abuse of power. Relief, including monetary compensation, was granted against the State for the wrongful detention.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's detention under the preventive detention law was justified on the facts found, and whether the respondents' action in registering the criminal case and detaining him was vitiated by abuse of power so as to entitle him to damages.

Analysis: The detention was founded on a press statement seeking permission to form an association for police personnel. The record did not show any incitement to disaffection towards the Government, any inducement to breach discipline, or any act attracting the ingredients of the offences alleged under the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 or Section 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The material also did not establish that the appellant was a goonda or that he was habitually engaging in activities prejudicial to public order within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu preventive detention statute. The Advisory Board itself found no sufficient cause for detention, and the detention was revoked. The Court held that the respondents proceeded on facts that did not exist, relied on unsupported assertions, and grossly abused legal power to detain the appellant and damage his reputation.

Conclusion: The detention was unjustified and the respondents' action was held to be an abuse of power. The appellant was entitled to relief.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the Court granted monetary relief against the State for the wrongful detention and unlawful exercise of power.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention based on non-existent or unsupported factual premises, without proof of the statutory ingredients of the alleged offences or of prejudicial public-order activity, constitutes an abuse of power and cannot be sustained.

---