Preventive detention pre-execution review is narrow, and advance supply of detention grounds is not a right before surrender.

Preventive detention may be subjected to judicial review before execution only in exceptional cases, such as lack of authority, mistaken identity, improper purpose, or facially vague or extraneous grounds. The constitutional scheme and detention law do not give a proposed detenu an independent right to obtain the detention order, grounds, or supporting documents in advance to mount a pre-execution challenge. Where the proposed detenu is absconding, disclosure will not be compelled merely because a relative seeks the materials on his behalf. Pre-execution interference is therefore narrow, and directions requiring pre-surrender supply of the detention papers were beyond the permissible scope of review.

---

---

Issues: Whether a detention order can be challenged before it is executed, and whether the proposed detenu or a person acting on his behalf is entitled to obtain the detention order and grounds before submitting to detention.

Analysis: The constitutional scheme permits preventive detention under a valid law, but judicial review under Articles 226 and 32 is ordinarily exercised after the order is executed. The Court held that pre-execution interference is confined to exceptional cases, such as lack of authority, wrong person, wrong purpose, or facially vague or extraneous grounds. The Constitution and the detention law do not require advance supply of the detention order and grounds to enable a proposed detenu to mount a pre-execution challenge as of right. Where the detenu is absconding and seeks to obtain the order indirectly through a relative, the Court will not compel disclosure before surrender. The High Court's direction to furnish the order, grounds, and supporting documents before submission to detention exceeded the permissible scope of pre-execution review.

Conclusion: Pre-execution challenge was not maintainable as a matter of right, and the proposed detenu was not entitled to the detention order or grounds before surrender; the High Court's directions were unsustainable.

---