JUDGMENT

VERMA, J.:— Special leave granted.

2. The appellant-petitioner, Smt. N. Meera Rani, is the wife of Nallathambi, who has been detained under the National Security Act, 1980 (Act No. 65 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). An order dated 7-91988 was made by the Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai, under section 3(2) of the Act directing that the detenu be kept In custody in the Central Prison, Madurai. Thereafter, the State Government by its order dated 25-10-1988 made under S. 12(l) of the Act has confirmed the order of detention agreeing with the opinion of the Advisory Board constituted under the Act and directed that the detenu be kept in detention for a period of 12 months from the date of his detention. This preventive detention of the detenu was challenged in the High Court of Judicature at Madras by his wife, the appellant- petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The High Court by its order dated 6-3-1989 has dismissed the writ petition. The appellant-petitioner has then challenged dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution in this Court. The appellant-petitioner has also filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for the same purpose in this Court challenging directly her husbands preventive detention. The object of filing this writ petition directly in this Court in addition to the appeal by special leave, is to raise some additional grounds to challenge the detenus detention. Both these matters have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. We may now state the arguments advanced to challenge the detenus detention before mentioning the relevant facts which are material for deciding those points. Shri U. R. Lalit, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, has advanced three contentions. The first contention is that certain documents which have been referred to in some grounds of detention were not supplied to the detenu with the result that the detenu was not given a proper and reasonable opportunity for making an effective representation and, therefore, the order of detention is vitiated for this reason alone. The second contention is that some documents in the form of newspaper reports showing that the detenu was apprehended and detained even prior to 21-8-1988 when the detenu was shown to have been arrested in connection with an offence punishable under section 397 1. P.C. were not placed before the detaining authority when it formed the opinion mentioned in the detention order which has also vitiated the detention order. The last contention is that the fact of detenus arrest in connection with an offence punishable under section 397 I P.C. and of remand to custody by the Magistrate as well as the contents of the bail application dated 22-8-1988 which was rejected by the Magistrate were not taken into account by the detaining authority before passing the order of detention dated 7-9-1988 which also renders the detention order invalid. On the other hand, Shri Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondents contended that even assuming that some documents referred to in the grounds of detention were material and were not supplied to the detenu the effect is not to invalidate the detention order for that reason alone in view of section 5A of the Act which has been inserted by Act 60 of 1984 with effect from 21-6-1984 since the detention order can be sustained even on the remaining grounds. In respect of the detenus custody in connection with the offence under section 397 1. P.C. and rejection of his bail application, it was urged that this fact was considered by the detaining authority and, therefore, it does not result in any infirmity. Shri Lalit, on behalf of the appellant-petitioner, further contended that section 5A of the Act cannot be construed in the manner suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents since th