Can detention grounds be challenged during emergency?

Yes. The Court held that even if enforcement of rights is suspended under Article 359, a person can still challenge the factual basis of a detention order.

Is service of detention valid when a person is already in custody?

No. Serving a preventive detention order on someone already in jail for a pending case is not valid within Rule 30(1)(b) in this context.

What about mala fide allegations?

Such pleas must be clearly pleaded with facts at the trial stage so the State can answer. Bare allegations are not enough.

What key principle did the Court clarify?

Suspending the remedy to enforce a right is different from destroying the right. Personal liberty remains; unlawful detention can be tested.

Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. State of Punjab

Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. State of Punjab (1964)

Easy English explainer on preventive detention, Article 359 during emergency, Article 21 liberty, and how to challenge detention grounds.

Supreme Court of India 1964 AIR 1964 SC 381 Emergency • Liberty ≈ 6 min read India

Quick Summary

During an emergency, the President can suspend the court remedy to enforce rights. But this case says: you can still question the facts behind a detention order. The Supreme Court held that serving a preventive detention order on someone already in jail was invalid on these facts. Mala fide claims must be properly pleaded. Personal liberty remains a core value even in crisis.

```

Issues

Does an Article 359 order block challenges to the factual basis of detention?
Is service of a detention order valid when the person is already in custody?
Was the plea of mala fide made out?

Rules

Article 359 & Liberty

Emergency may suspend enforcement of rights, not the ability to test the legality or factual basis of detention.

Preventive Detention

Rule 30(1)(b) applies if the person can carry on prejudicial acts; using it on someone already in jail is suspect.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline for Makhan Singh Tarsikka case events

FIR lodged for IPC 307, 324, 364, 367 at Jandiala Police Station.

Arrest on 25 Oct 1962; national emergency proclaimed soon after.

Appellant moved to judicial custody.

Detention order issued under Rule 30(1)(b) of Defence of India Rules, 1962.

Appellant said detention grounds were false; filed writ.

High Court rejected the writ. Appeal reached the Supreme Court.

Arguments

Appellant

Detention facts were false; order illegal.
Already in jail; cannot “prevent” prejudicial acts.
Mala fide in using emergency to silence him.

State

Article 359 suspended enforcement; writ not maintainable.
Detention necessary for security; preventive, not punitive.
No clear mala fide pleaded with facts.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the challenge to the detention’s factual basis despite the Article 359 order. It held that serving a Rule 30(1)(b) detention on a person already in custody was invalid on these facts. The mala fide plea failed for lack of proper pleadings.

Ratio

Suspension of enforcement ≠ extinction of liberty. Courts can test detention facts.
Preventive detention must target a person capable of acting; custody breaks this link.
Mala fide needs clear, specific pleadings and proof.

Why It Matters

Even in emergencies, the rule of law lives. The State’s power to detain is checked by facts, fairness, and proper procedure. This case protects liberty when it is most at risk.

Key Takeaways

Article 359 suspends remedy, not rights.

Facts behind detention are reviewable.

Detention on those already in custody is suspect.

Mala fide must be pleaded with detail.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “REF-LIB” — Remedies suspended • Emergency • Facts reviewable • LIBerty lives.

Ask: Is it preventive and necessary?
Check: Is the detainee free to act or already in custody?
Test: Do facts support detention? Any pleaded mala fide?

IRAC Outline

Issue

Does Article 359 block challenges to detention facts? Is service valid when already in jail? Was mala fide proved?

Rule

Enforcement may be suspended, but liberty remains; Rule 30(1)(b) needs capacity to act; mala fide requires clear pleadings.

Application

Appellant in custody could not act prejudicially; factual basis open to review; pleadings for mala fide were inadequate.

Conclusion

Detention service invalid; factual challenge allowed; mala fide plea failed.

Glossary

Article 359: Allows suspension of the right to move courts for enforcement of specified fundamental rights during emergency.
Preventive Detention: Detaining a person to stop future harmful acts, not to punish past acts.
Mala fide: Bad faith. A claim that power was used for an improper purpose.