Pre-execution challenge to preventive detention declined where the proposed detenue was absconding and evading the process of law.

Article 226 permits pre-execution judicial review of preventive detention orders, but only within narrow self-imposed limits and exceptional grounds such as lack of authority, mistaken identity, wrong purpose, or vague and extraneous grounds. Where the proposed detenue is absconding, has evaded service, and has not surrendered, the Court may refuse to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction, even if proceedings under COFEPOSA and the Code of Criminal Procedure have been initiated. Delay alone, or the quashing of a co-accused's detention order, does not justify interference in favour of a person still avoiding the process of law. The pre-execution challenge was therefore not entertained and the writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court should entertain a writ petition challenging a preventive detention order at the pre-execution stage when the proposed detenue is absconding and has evaded the process of law.

Analysis: The power of judicial review under Article 226 extends to preventive detention orders even before execution, but the jurisdiction is exercised subject to well-settled self-imposed restraints. Pre-execution interference is confined to exceptional situations such as lack of authority, wrong person, wrong purpose, or vague and extraneous grounds. Where the proposed detenue has been avoiding service, has not surrendered, and proceedings under the COFEPOSA Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure have been initiated in consequence, the Court may decline to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction. A mere lapse of time or reliance on the quashing of a co-accused's detention order does not by itself justify interference in favour of a person who is still absconding.

Conclusion: The pre-execution challenge was not entertained and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-execution challenge to a preventive detention order may be refused where the proposed detenue is absconding and has evaded the process of law, because the Court will ordinarily not exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction in aid of a lawbreaker.

---