Preventive detention and representation delay: parity claims fail, but unexplained delay in deciding the detenu's representation invalidates detention.

Preventive detention under the National Security Act is based on individualized subjective satisfaction, so a detainee cannot claim release merely because another person involved in similar facts was treated differently; parity is not an enforceable ground under Article 14, and that challenge fails. A separate constitutional safeguard requires prompt consideration of the detenu's representation, and unexplained inordinate delay in processing it was not justified by file movement or ministerial availability. The delay defeated the continued detention, rendering it illegal and warranting release.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order of preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980 can be challenged on the ground of parity with the case of another detenu said to have been dealt with differently on similar facts; (ii) Whether the continued detention became illegal because of inordinate delay in deciding the detenu's representation.

Issue (i): Whether an order of preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980 can be challenged on the ground of parity with the case of another detenu said to have been dealt with differently on similar facts?

Analysis: Preventive detention under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 rests on the subjective satisfaction of the appropriate Government, formed on an individual assessment of the detenu's conduct, tendency, surrounding circumstances, and the material placed before the detaining authority and the Advisory Board. The statutory scheme also contemplates confidential material before the Advisory Board and different possible outcomes on different materials even where some incidents are common. In such a framework, identical treatment cannot be claimed merely because another person involved in a similar or even the same incident was later released or not confirmed. Article 14 does not create a right to parity where the statute itself requires individualized subjective satisfaction.

Conclusion: The challenge to preventive detention on the ground of parity is not maintainable, and the claim based on parity fails.

Issue (ii): Whether the continued detention became illegal because of inordinate delay in deciding the detenu's representation?

Analysis: The right to have a representation considered promptly is a vital safeguard in preventive detention matters. The representation was received by the Central Government and remained pending through successive administrative levels for a substantial period. The explanation that the file awaited the availability of the Minister of State for Home was not accepted as a valid justification for the delay. Prompt consideration was required, and the delay was not shown to be unavoidable or satisfactorily explained. In these circumstances, the delay broke the protection attached to the continued detention.

Conclusion: The continued detention was illegal on account of unexplained delay in disposal of the representation, and release was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge based on parity was rejected, but the detention could not survive because the detenu's representation was not decided with the promptitude required by law.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters founded on subjective satisfaction, parity with another detenu is not a legally enforceable ground for release, and unexplained inordinate delay in considering the detenu's representation renders the continued detention illegal.

---