( 1 ) THOUGH we have heard this application along with some others wherein also the same question arises all the cases having been referred to a Full Bench because of the importance of the question raised we are disposing of by this judgment only this application though we have heard counsel in all the other cases on the constitutional question arising in this case. This is because the other cases require consideration on the merits too and reply affidavits have not been filed in those cases yet. We hence delink those cases from this case and remit them to be disposed of by the Division Bench normally hearing such applications by a separate order. On the question of the constitutional validity of the sections impugned in this case the decision rendered by us in this petition would give sufficient guidance to the Division Bench.

( 2 ) IN this country there have been various preventive detention laws enacted by the Parliament from time to time. Persons who are security risks to the State are to be detained under the provisions of some of such enactments. Under some enactments persons who are found to be anti-social and are likely to sabotage the economic and social order in this country are to be held under preventive detention. It is the great risk involved in allowing such persons to move about freely and with the same amount of liberty enjoyed by the ordinary citizens of the land that justifies preventive detention in their cases. It is the apprehension of very grave consequences if they are allowed to be free and on their own that justifies invocation of provisions relating to preventive detention against them. Otherwise detention can only be punitive. A person subjected to preventive detention gets the benefit of many safeguards and more than anything else that of a regular trial according to recognised canons of criminal jurisprudence and also the benefit of adjudication by a traditional court with the in-built safeguard of hierarchy of appeals and revisions. Though every citizen is entitled to enjoy personal liberty and freedom encroachment is made thereto in exceptional and extraordinary cases these cases being that of grave and serious repercussions either on the safety and security of the State or on that of the economic order of this country. All the same the provisions of law relating to preventive detention which apply to them assure them several safeguards safeguards which could be tested in the light of the constitutional guarantees particularly those in Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. At the other end of the spectrum there are petty criminals in this country who might either have committed crime at some time of their lives or may be persons described by the Police generally as undesirable characters understood by the people by the ordinary connotation of village goondas. There are statutes in India to deal with them not by way of preventive detention but by allied measures such as externment which have the consequence of keeping such people outside their own as well as neighbouring districts and away from their families for fairly long periods. Considering the station in life to which they belong the consequences to them may be as bad as if not worse than that of preventive detention. Should the law relating to such externments satisfy the test of Article 21 of the Constitution and should those persons have at least the same privileges and right to consideration of their cases as those to whom the law of preventive detention is applied ? By reason of the mere assumption by the Police that a person against whom they take action for externment belongs to an undesirable class in society should the person against whom such action is taken fall into a different class and be denied all normal rights ? Since such action is taken by the Officers of Police can it be said they are not likely to misuse the power ? We are tempted to ask the question which Justice Krishna Iyer asked in PREM CHAN