Preventive detention period and parole effects were referred to a five-Judge Bench for reconsideration of the law.

Preventive detention is distinguished from punitive detention because the detaining authority fixes the detention period from the date stated in the order, and the Court expressed prima facie doubt that parole or erroneous release can extend that period. It also noted that the issue of rearresting a detenu after release under a High Court order later reversed, where the original detention period has expired, raises a tension between effective preventive detention and personal liberty and may need legislative intervention. The questions were referred to a five-Judge Bench for reconsideration of the law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the period of preventive detention runs strictly from the date specified in the detention order or is extended by parole; and whether, after release under a High Court order later reversed, the detenu can be rearrested and detained if the original detention period has expired.

Analysis: The Court noted that preventive detention differs from punitive detention because the detaining authority fixes a period from the date specified in the order. It expressed prima facie doubt about earlier decisions treating parole or erroneous release as extending the detention period. The Court also observed that the problem of release following an erroneous High Court decision and later reversal may require legislative intervention, and highlighted the conflict between effective preventive detention and personal liberty.

Outcome: The questions were referred to a Bench of five Judges for reconsideration of the law.

---