Pre-execution detention challenge may include a consequential notification challenge where the two are directly linked.

A challenge to a detention order under COFEPOSA could be amended to include a challenge to the consequential Section 7(1)(b) notification, because the notification was directly linked to the unexecuted detention order and was not wholly alien to the writ petition. The Court treated the amendment stage as requiring only a prima facie assessment, particularly where personal liberty was at stake, and declined to refuse amendment on objections based on maintainability, delay, or the petitioner's conduct. The petitioner was also permitted to plead malice in law, with the merits of that contention left open for later determination. The amendment was allowed and pleadings were directed to be completed expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could amend the writ petition challenging the detention order so as to include a challenge to the notification issued under Section 7(1)(b) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, and whether such amendment should be permitted in a pre-execution detention challenge.

Analysis: The notification under Section 7(1)(b) was held to be directly connected with the detention order because it was issued on the premise that the detention order could not be executed. The Court held that the proposed challenge was not wholly alien to the subject matter of the writ petition and that insisting on a separate petition would create avoidable procedural complications. The Court further noted that, at the amendment stage, only a prima facie assessment was required, especially where personal liberty was implicated. The objections based on maintainability, delay, and the petitioner's alleged conduct were not accepted as grounds to deny amendment at this stage. The Court also observed that the petitioner should be allowed to contend that the Section 7 notification was actuated by malice in law, leaving the merits open for later determination.

Conclusion: The amendment was allowed, and the petitioner was permitted to incorporate the additional challenge and grounds in the writ petition.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition proceeded with the additional challenge to the Section 7 notification, and the pleadings were directed to be completed expeditiously for final hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A Section 7 notification issued in relation to an unexecuted detention order may be challenged along with the detention petition where it is consequential to, and directly linked with, the detention order, and such amendment may be allowed on a prima facie view without deciding the merits of the challenge.

---