Unchallenged emergency detention orders cannot ordinarily be reopened later as a basis for SAFEMA proceedings.

A detention order passed during an emergency, if not challenged during the emergency or while it remained operative, cannot ordinarily be reopened when later used as the basis for SAFEMA action. The controlling principle drawn from Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas is that the relevant failure is the omission to challenge the detention at the proper time, not later attempts to question it. Authorities involving earlier challenges that became infructuous were distinguished. Prior withdrawal of a writ petition did not alter the result, and the later challenge to the detention order was held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order of detention passed during an emergency, and not challenged during the emergency or while it remained operative, can later be assailed when proceedings are initiated under SAFEMA.

Analysis: The governing principle applied was that a detention order which could have been challenged during the period of emergency or during its life time, but was not so challenged, cannot ordinarily be reopened when it is later relied upon as the basis for action under SAFEMA. The decision in Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas was treated as controlling, and the Court distinguished authorities where the detention had in fact been challenged earlier but the petitions had become infructuous or had not been decided on merits. The Court also held that the prior withdrawal of an earlier writ petition did not require a different result, because the decisive fact remained the failure to challenge the detention order at the relevant time.

Conclusion: The subsequent challenge to the detention order was not maintainable, and the Court declined to examine the detention order on merits.

---