Fresh detention orders require genuinely new facts; reliance on earlier material and minor variations cannot sustain preventive detention.

A fresh detention order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 can be made only on genuinely new facts arising after revocation or expiry of the earlier order and capable of supporting preventive detention satisfaction under section 14(2). Where the later order rests on substantially the same material as the earlier one, it is invalid even if the earlier order had expired or was not confirmed. Alleged release on bail and a minor change in the stated object of detention were not fresh facts on these facts. The second order was therefore unsupported by the statutory requirement of fresh facts and could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether a fresh detention order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 could be sustained after the earlier detention order had expired or not been confirmed, on the basis of the alleged subsequent facts, and whether those facts were truly fresh facts within section 14(2).

Analysis: Section 14(2) permits a fresh detention order only when fresh facts arise after revocation or expiry of the earlier order and those facts are sufficient to support the statutory satisfaction for preventive detention. The earlier order had ceased to operate, so the validity of the later order depended on genuinely new facts, not on the same pre-existing allegations. The alleged release on bail and the minor variation in the stated object of detention did not constitute fresh facts. The material relied upon for the second order was substantially the same as that underlying the first order, and the later order was founded on the same grounds already in existence before expiry of the earlier order.

Conclusion: The fresh detention order was invalid for want of fresh facts, and the detention could not be sustained.

---