Preventive detention limits, mala fides, and disclosure of grounds: detention upheld despite no Advisory Board reference within time.

Section 13A of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964 operates as a non obstante exception to the ordinary requirement of Advisory Board reference, permitting detention for a specified period without such reference where the detention is intended to remain within that maximum period. A plea of mala fides requires specific particulars showing ill-will or collateral purpose, and cannot rest merely on the making of a fresh detention order after revocation of an earlier one. Grounds of detention are not vague merely because sensitive facts are withheld in public interest under Section 8(2); read with the withheld material lawfully excluded, the grounds were held sufficient.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in the circumstances covered by Section 13A of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964, the detenu's case had to be referred to the Advisory Board within sixty days so as to invalidate continued detention in the absence of such reference. (ii) Whether the detention order was vitiated by mala fides. (iii) Whether the grounds of detention were vague and indefinite.

Issue (i): Whether, in the circumstances covered by Section 13A of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964, the detenu's case had to be referred to the Advisory Board within sixty days so as to invalidate continued detention in the absence of such reference.

Analysis: Section 13A begins with a non obstante clause and authorises detention for a period longer than three months but not exceeding six months without obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board in the specified classes of cases. The provision operates as an exception to Section 10 and the other relevant provisions. Where the detenu is intended to be detained only for that period, the Government is not bound to refer the matter to the Advisory Board. The detention in question was within that six-month period.

Conclusion: The absence of a reference to the Advisory Board within sixty days did not render the detention invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the detention order was vitiated by mala fides.

Analysis: A plea of mala fides must be supported by particulars showing ill-will or a collateral purpose. The mere issuance of a fresh detention order after revocation of the earlier order, without more, does not establish bad faith. No sufficient particulars were furnished to show that the statutory power had been exercised for an improper purpose.

Conclusion: The detention order was not shown to be mala fide.

Issue (iii): Whether the grounds of detention were vague and indefinite.

Analysis: Under Section 8(2), facts considered by the Government to be against public interest need not be disclosed. The order informed the detenu that the grounds were set out in an annexure and that relevant facts, except those withheld in public interest, had been communicated. Any apparent indefiniteness in the annexure was attributable to the lawful withholding of sensitive material. The grounds, read in that light, were sufficient.

Conclusion: The grounds of detention were not so vague or indefinite as to invalidate the order.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the preventive detention order failed on all substantive grounds, and the detenu's continued detention was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a preventive detention statute expressly permits detention without Advisory Board opinion for a specified maximum period, the Government need not refer the case within that period; mala fides cannot be inferred without particulars; and grounds are not vague merely because non-disclosable facts are withheld in public interest.

---