4316.txt

The current document is an appeal by a lawyer with 30 years of experience against the dismissal of his application challenging the validity of his detention under the Preventive Detention Act in India. The detaining authority accused him of carrying out espionage activities on behalf of the Portuguese Government with the help of underground workers and collecting intelligence about security arrangements on the border area, which were being made available to the Portuguese authorities. The appellant argued that the detention order was mala fides and that the detaining authority failed to apply its mind to the existence or otherwise of the legitimate objects of detention. The High Court dismissed the application, and the appellant raised further points regarding the alleged vagueness of the grounds furnished and the alleged unsustainable claim for non-disclosure under article 22(6) of the Constitution on behalf of the detaining authority to get over the alleged vagueness. The High Court agreed that the allegation of non-application of mind by the detaining authority was without any basis, and the appellant himself did not appear to have felt that the grounds furnished were so vague as to hamper him in his right to make a representation under article 22(5) and section 7 of the Act. The court also addressed the issue of whether the detaining authority was obligated to communicate the decision not to disclose certain facts considered against public interest. The court found that no such obligation existed unless the detainee specifically requested particulars. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, as the contentions raised by the appellant failed.