Can a preventive detention order issued by the Governor without revealing the supporting material be contested in the Punjab and Haryana High Court via a habeas corpus petition?

Sources
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Case Analysis: Read case analysis

Suppose a person is taken into custody under a preventive‑detention order issued by the State Government pursuant to a national security provision, the order being signed by the Governor after the investigating agency submitted a report alleging that the detainee was involved in activities prejudicial to public order. The order states that the Governor is “satisfied” that detention is necessary, but it provides no detail of the material on which that satisfaction is based, and the detainee is placed in a district jail without being shown the grounds of detention.

The investigating agency’s report, prepared by senior police officials, claims that the detainee had attended meetings of a banned organization and had supplied funds for illicit activities. The detainee, however, maintains that the report is based on fabricated statements obtained under duress and that the alleged meetings never occurred. When the detainee’s counsel requests access to the underlying file, the authorities refuse, citing security concerns, and they decline to produce an affidavit from the Governor confirming personal examination of the material.

While the detainee remains in custody, the regular criminal‑trial route is unavailable because no charge‑sheet has been filed and no trial has commenced. The only avenue to contest the legality of the detention is to challenge the order itself. An ordinary factual defence—such as denying the alleged participation in the banned organization—cannot succeed at this stage, because the matter has not yet been placed before a criminal court for adjudication on the merits.

The legal problem, therefore, is whether the preventive‑detention order, issued on the basis of an alleged subjective satisfaction, can be set aside for being mala fide and for failing to disclose the material on which the satisfaction was founded. The detainee must also obtain a direction for the production of the departmental file so that the court can assess whether the order was grounded in genuine evidence or in fabricated reports.

Because the order is an executive action, the appropriate remedy is a writ of habeas corpus under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court, exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, can examine the legality of the detention, require the production of the material, and, if satisfied that the order is irregular or mala fide, may quash it and order the release of the detainee.

Consequently, the detainee files a petition for habeas corpus before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking the following relief: (i) a declaration that the preventive‑detention order is void; (ii) an order directing the State to produce the complete investigative file; (iii) an affidavit from the Governor confirming personal satisfaction after examining the material; and (iv) immediate release from custody. The petition specifically alleges that the order was issued on false premises and that the investigating agency’s report was prepared with a hostile motive.

In drafting the petition, the detainee engages a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court who is experienced in criminal‑law strategy and writ practice. The counsel frames the arguments around the presumption of regularity, the subjective‑satisfaction test, and the requirement that the executive must have a factual basis for its satisfaction. The petition also invokes the principle that the court may examine the material when the order is shown to be defective or mala fide.

The prosecution, represented by the State’s counsel, opposes the petition on the ground that the Governor’s satisfaction is a matter of executive discretion and that the High Court should not inquire into the substantive material unless the order is manifestly illegal. The State argues that the investigative report, being a document of the police, is sufficient to establish the Governor’s satisfaction, and therefore the writ should be dismissed.

Nevertheless, the procedural route remains before the Punjab and Haryana High Court because the detention order is not a sentence passed by a criminal court but an executive order that can be challenged only through a writ jurisdiction. An appeal under the ordinary criminal appellate provisions would be premature, as there is no conviction to appeal from. The writ jurisdiction allows the court to scrutinise the procedural regularity of the order, to compel the production of documents, and to ensure that the constitutional right to personal liberty is not infringed without due cause.

The petition therefore seeks a comprehensive judicial review of the order, rather than a mere bail application. By invoking the writ of habeas corpus, the detainee aims to bring the executive’s satisfaction under judicial scrutiny, to expose any mala‑fide motive, and to secure an immediate remedy that cannot be obtained through ordinary criminal proceedings.

In sum, the legal problem—whether a preventive‑detention order issued on alleged false material can be set aside—finds its proper resolution in a writ of habeas corpus filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The specific remedy of quashing the order and directing the production of the investigative file follows directly from the need to test the executive’s subjective satisfaction, a principle that the High Court is empowered to examine under its constitutional jurisdiction.

Question: Can the Punjab and Haryana High Court compel the State to produce the investigative file and the Governor’s affidavit despite the State’s claim that disclosure would jeopardise national security?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the detainee is confined under a preventive‑detention order that rests on an undisclosed police report and a statement of satisfaction by the Governor. The State’s refusal to produce the underlying material is premised on alleged security concerns, yet the writ of habeas corpus is a constitutional remedy designed to test the legality of executive detention. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will argue that the High Court possesses inherent powers to order the production of documents when the order is alleged to be mala fide or unsupported by material facts. The court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 includes the authority to issue a direction for inspection of the file, provided that the petitioner demonstrates a prima facie case that the order may be irregular. The petitioner’s counsel must show that the denial of the file prevents any meaningful assessment of the Governor’s satisfaction, thereby infringing the detainee’s right to personal liberty under Article 21. While the State may invoke the public‑interest immunity defence, the High Court balances that against the fundamental right to liberty, often requiring the State to produce at least a redacted version that protects sensitive information. In practice, the court may appoint a neutral expert or a special master to review the material in camera, ensuring that security considerations are respected while the petitioner’s right to a fair enquiry is upheld. If the court finds that the State’s blanket refusal is disproportionate, it will issue an order directing the production of the investigative file, possibly with conditions of confidentiality. Such an order would enable the court to determine whether the Governor’s satisfaction was based on genuine evidence or fabricated reports. The practical implication for the accused is that the production of the file opens the door to a substantive challenge to the detention, whereas the State would be compelled to justify its security claim, potentially narrowing the scope of the material it can withhold. The outcome hinges on the court’s assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the State’s secrecy claim, a determination that a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court is well‑placed to make.

Question: Does the absence of an affidavit from the Governor confirming personal examination of the material defeat the presumption of regularity attached to the preventive‑detention order?

Answer: The presumption of regularity operates on the premise that a duly authenticated order, signed by the competent authority, is valid unless proven otherwise. In the present case, the order bears the Governor’s signature and records his satisfaction, yet it lacks an accompanying affidavit that the Governor personally examined the investigative file. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will contend that while the presumption is strong, it is not absolute; it can be rebutted by credible evidence of procedural irregularity or mala fide intent. The absence of an affidavit raises a material question: did the Governor rely on a summary, on a subordinate’s recommendation, or on no substantive material at all? The petitioner’s counsel can argue that the statutory framework for preventive detention requires the authority to be satisfied after a proper appraisal of the material, and that the affidavit is the conventional means of evidencing such satisfaction. Without it, the court may infer that the requisite procedural step was omitted, thereby weakening the presumption. Moreover, the High Court’s power to examine the material in question allows it to assess whether the Governor’s satisfaction was grounded in fact. If the court finds that the lack of an affidavit is indicative of a procedural lapse, it may deem the order ultra vires, leading to its quash. Conversely, the State may argue that the affidavit is a matter of internal record and not essential for the order’s validity, relying on the doctrine of executive discretion. However, jurisprudence indicates that when the order is challenged on grounds of irregularity, the court may require the authority to produce evidence of its satisfaction. The practical implication for the accused is that the missing affidavit strengthens the case for quashing the detention, while the State may be compelled to produce the affidavit or risk the order being set aside. The High Court’s willingness to scrutinise the procedural compliance, as advocated by lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court, will determine whether the presumption of regularity survives this challenge.

Question: Is the detainee’s right to be informed of the grounds of detention violated, and what specific relief can the court grant to remedy this breach?

Answer: The factual scenario reveals that the detainee has not been shown the grounds of his preventive detention, nor has he been provided with a copy of the investigative report. Under the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty, the right to be informed of the reasons for detention is a cornerstone of due process. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will argue that the failure to disclose the grounds contravenes the principle that any deprivation of liberty must be accompanied by a clear statement of the factual basis. The writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate vehicle to enforce this right, and the court can order the State to furnish the detainee with a summary of the material on which the Governor’s satisfaction was based. The relief may include a declaration that the order is void for non‑compliance with the procedural requirement of informing the detainee, an injunction directing the production of the grounds, and, if necessary, an order for the immediate release of the detainee pending a proper hearing. The court may also direct that the investigative file be made available for inspection in camera, ensuring that the detainee’s right to know the case against him is satisfied without compromising security. The practical effect of such relief is twofold: it restores the detainee’s procedural rights and places the State on notice that future preventive‑detention orders must comply with the disclosure requirement. For the prosecution, the directive to produce the grounds may compel a reassessment of the evidence, potentially leading to the withdrawal of the order if the material is insufficient. The High Court’s intervention, as advocated by lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court, thus serves both to protect individual liberty and to enforce procedural discipline on the executive.

Question: Can the High Court set aside the preventive‑detention order on the ground that it was issued mala fide, and what evidentiary burden must the petitioner satisfy to prove mala fide intent?

Answer: The allegation of mala fide exercise of power requires the petitioner to demonstrate that the State acted with an ulterior motive or without a genuine belief in the necessity of detention. In the present case, the detainee asserts that the police report was fabricated and that the Governor’s satisfaction was based on false premises. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will explain that the burden of proof rests on the petitioner to produce positive evidence of bad faith, such as internal communications revealing hostility, inconsistencies in the investigative report, or testimony that the material was obtained under duress. Mere denial of the allegations is insufficient; the petitioner must show that the State’s purpose deviated from the statutory object of maintaining public order. The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, may consider the credibility of the investigative report, the circumstances of its preparation, and any corroborative evidence of coercion. If the court finds that the report was indeed fabricated or that the Governor’s satisfaction was not based on any material, it can declare the order ultra vires and quash it, ordering the detainee’s release. Conversely, if the State can produce credible evidence that the report was prepared in good faith, the mala fide claim will fail. The practical implication for the accused is that a successful demonstration of mala fide intent leads to immediate relief, whereas failure to meet the evidentiary threshold results in the continuation of detention. The State, anticipating such a challenge, may pre‑emptively disclose the file or provide an affidavit to counter the mala fide allegation. The High Court’s willingness to scrutinise the subjective satisfaction, as urged by lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court, is pivotal in determining whether the order can be set aside on grounds of bad faith.

Question: While the writ petition is pending, does the detainee have any right to bail or other interim relief, and how might the court balance the interests of liberty against the State’s security concerns?

Answer: The detainee remains in custody under a preventive‑detention order, which is not a sentence imposed by a criminal court. Nevertheless, the High Court retains the power to grant interim relief, including bail, if it is satisfied that the detention is unlawful or that the petitioner’s liberty is being unduly curtailed. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will argue that the writ of habeas corpus itself is an extraordinary remedy that can incorporate interim orders to preserve the status quo pending final determination. The court must weigh the petitioner’s constitutional right to liberty against the State’s claim of national‑security imperatives. If the court finds that the material supporting the detention is undisclosed and the allegations of fabrication are credible, it may deem the detention arbitrary and grant bail, subject to reasonable conditions such as reporting to the police station. Conversely, if the State demonstrates that the detainee poses a genuine threat to public order, the court may deny bail but could still order the production of the file to enable a substantive hearing. The practical effect of granting bail is that the detainee is released from physical restraint while the High Court examines the merits of the writ, thereby preventing irreversible harm to personal liberty. For the prosecution, an interim bail order may compel a more rigorous justification of the detention. The High Court’s discretion to grant such relief, as advocated by lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court, ensures that the balance between individual rights and security considerations is maintained throughout the pendency of the petition.

Question: Why does the writ of habeas corpus challenging the preventive‑detention order have to be filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court rather than any other forum?

Answer: The factual backdrop is a preventive‑detention order signed by the Governor after an investigative report alleged the detainee’s involvement in activities prejudicial to public order. The order is an executive action, not a criminal sentence, and therefore it falls outside the ordinary criminal‑trial machinery that would commence only after a charge‑sheet is filed. Because the order directly curtails personal liberty, the Constitution empowers a High Court to examine its legality through a writ of habeas corpus under its constitutional jurisdiction. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, seated in Chandigarh, has territorial jurisdiction over the State that issued the order and the district jail where the detainee is confined. No appellate criminal court can entertain a petition at this stage because there is no conviction or sentence to appeal from. Moreover, the writ jurisdiction is exclusive for reviewing the legality of executive detentions, allowing the court to scrutinise whether the Governor’s satisfaction was based on material evidence or was mala fide. The High Court can compel the production of the departmental file, demand an affidavit from the Governor confirming personal examination of the material, and, if satisfied, quash the order and order release. Practically, filing before the Punjab and Haryana High Court ensures that the petition is heard by a court that has both the constitutional authority and the geographic competence to direct the State authorities to appear. This route also prevents the petitioner from being forced to wait for a criminal trial that may never commence, thereby safeguarding the constitutional right to liberty. The High Court’s power to issue a writ, examine the material, and grant relief is the only effective remedy at this juncture, making it the proper forum for the petition.

Question: In what way does a purely factual defence of denying participation in the banned organisation fail to protect the detainee at the stage of a preventive‑detention challenge?

Answer: The detainee’s factual defence—that the alleged meetings never occurred and that the investigative report is fabricated—addresses the truth of the allegations but does not engage the procedural defect that is the core of the legal problem. Because the preventive‑detention order is an executive decision, the court’s review is limited to the existence of a valid basis for the Governor’s satisfaction, not to a full evidentiary trial on the merits of the accusations. The detainee remains in custody without a charge‑sheet, and the criminal court has not yet been called upon to assess the credibility of the statements. Consequently, a factual denial cannot be tested through cross‑examination or the rules of evidence that govern criminal trials. The High Court’s writ jurisdiction requires the petitioner to demonstrate that the order is ultra vires, that the material on which the satisfaction was based is either non‑existent or unreliable, and that the procedural safeguards—such as disclosure of grounds and production of the file—have been violated. Only by showing that the executive acted beyond its authority or on false premises can the court intervene. Therefore, the factual defence alone is insufficient; the detainee must invoke the constitutional remedy of habeas corpus, compelling the State to produce the investigative file and prove the existence of a genuine material basis. This procedural focus aligns with the High Court’s power to quash an order that is mala fide, ensuring that the detainee’s liberty is not curtailed on the basis of untested allegations.

Question: Why might a person in this situation specifically seek a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, and how does that choice affect the filing of the writ petition?

Answer: The Punjab and Haryana High Court sits in Chandigarh, making it the natural seat for any writ petition arising from a detention order issued by the State government. A detainee or his family, aware that the High Court’s registry, clerk, and procedural rules are administered from Chandigarh, will typically look for a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court who is familiar with the local practice, filing deadlines, and the specific format required for a habeas corpus petition. Engaging a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court ensures that the petition complies with the High Court’s procedural requisites, such as the proper annexure of the detention order, the affidavit of the detainee, and the request for production of the departmental file. Moreover, a lawyer practising before the High Court will have experience in drafting urgent applications, securing interim relief, and navigating the court’s rules on service of notice to the State. This local expertise can expedite the issuance of a notice to the State, thereby compelling the authorities to appear before the court promptly. The choice of a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court also facilitates direct interaction with the court’s registry for filing fees, obtaining case numbers, and tracking the progress of the petition. Practically, the lawyer’s familiarity with the High Court’s jurisprudence on preventive detention, including prior decisions on the subjective‑satisfaction test, strengthens the argument for quashing the order. Thus, seeking a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court is a strategic decision that aligns the procedural filing with the jurisdictional seat of the court, ensuring that the writ petition is presented effectively and that the detainee’s rights are robustly advocated.

Question: What are the procedural steps that the detainee must follow after engaging lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court to obtain relief through a writ of habeas corpus?

Answer: Once the detainee retains lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court, the first step is to draft a petition for habeas corpus that sets out the factual background, the legal issue of the executive’s unsatisfied subjective satisfaction, and the relief sought, including a declaration of voidness, production of the investigative file, an affidavit from the Governor, and immediate release. The petition must be accompanied by the copy of the preventive‑detention order, the detainee’s affidavit, and any supporting documents such as the denial of access to the file. The lawyer will then file the petition in the appropriate registry of the High Court, paying the requisite court fees and ensuring that the State’s counsel is served with notice of the petition. After filing, the High Court typically issues a notice to the State, directing it to appear and to produce the material on which the Governor’s satisfaction was based. The State may file a written response, often claiming executive discretion and refusing to produce the file on security grounds. At this stage, the detainee’s counsel will argue that the refusal violates the constitutional right to personal liberty and that the High Court has the authority to examine the material when the order is alleged to be mala fide. The court may then schedule a hearing, during which the petitioner can request interim relief, such as a direction for the detainee’s release pending final determination. If the court is convinced that the order lacks a factual basis, it may issue an order directing the production of the departmental file, compel the Governor to furnish an affidavit, and ultimately quash the detention order, ordering the detainee’s release. Throughout this process, the lawyer’s role includes filing interlocutory applications, responding to the State’s objections, and ensuring that the procedural timeline is adhered to, thereby maximizing the chance of obtaining swift relief. The procedural route, anchored in the High Court’s writ jurisdiction, transforms the factual dispute into a judicial review of the executive’s action, providing the detainee with a concrete remedy that cannot be achieved through ordinary criminal defence alone.

Question: How should the accused’s counsel assess the procedural defect arising from the preventive‑detention order’s failure to disclose any material on which the Governor’s satisfaction is based, and what impact does that have on the prospect of obtaining a writ of habeas corpus?

Answer: The first step for a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court is to map the statutory and constitutional requirements that govern a preventive‑detention order. The order must be authenticated, must recite the Governor’s satisfaction, and, crucially, the court may demand that the material on which that satisfaction rests be disclosed when the order is alleged to be mala fide or otherwise irregular. In the present facts the order is silent on the factual basis, offering only a bare assertion of satisfaction. This omission creates a strong procedural defect because the High Court’s jurisdiction under the writ of habeas corpus includes the power to examine the legality of the detention and to compel the production of documents that are essential to that examination. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court will therefore argue that the presumption of regularity attached to an executive order is rebuttable when the order is shown to be deficient on its face, as it fails to satisfy the minimum requirement of stating the grounds of detention. The absence of any material description prevents the accused from testing the veracity of the allegations and defeats the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty. Practically, this defect can be leveraged to obtain an interim direction that the State produce the complete investigative file, or at the very least a summary of the material considered by the Governor. The court, upon finding that the order is opaque, may deem the detention unlawful and issue an order of release. Moreover, the defect strengthens the case for quashing the order altogether, because the executive’s subjective satisfaction cannot be insulated from judicial scrutiny when the order itself is procedurally infirm. Consequently, the strategic focus should be on highlighting this procedural lacuna, requesting a detailed affidavit from the Governor, and seeking an immediate writ relief that compels disclosure, thereby creating a pathway to either release or a more robust challenge to the substantive basis of the detention.

Question: What evidentiary tactics can be employed to secure the investigative file and related affidavits, and how should a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court coordinate with the investigating agency and the State to overcome the claim of security‑related non‑disclosure?

Answer: A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court must first invoke the principle that the High Court has the authority to order the production of documents when a writ petition raises a question of legality. The petition should specifically request that the State produce the departmental file, the police report, and an affidavit from the Governor confirming personal satisfaction after examining the material. To counter the State’s argument of security concerns, the counsel can propose a protective order that limits public dissemination of the documents, allowing the court to examine them in camera. This approach demonstrates a willingness to address the State’s apprehensions while still securing the necessary evidence. Additionally, the lawyer can file a supplementary application for a direction that the investigating agency submit a certified copy of the statements allegedly obtained under duress, thereby exposing any procedural improprieties in the collection of evidence. The strategy should also include a request for the court to appoint a neutral expert or a court‑appointed officer to verify the authenticity of the documents, which can mitigate the State’s claim that disclosure would compromise ongoing investigations. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court may further seek to invoke the doctrine of procedural fairness, arguing that the accused’s right to a fair hearing cannot be satisfied without access to the material that forms the basis of the detention order. If the State continues to refuse, the counsel can move for a contempt application, highlighting that non‑compliance with a court order would itself be a violation of the rule of law. Throughout, the lawyer must maintain a detailed record of all communications with the State and the investigating agency, as this paper trail can be used to demonstrate bad faith or mala fide intent if the State’s refusal appears unjustified. By combining a request for in‑camera inspection, protective orders, and a readiness to involve the court in supervising the production, the counsel maximizes the likelihood of obtaining the evidentiary material essential for a substantive challenge to the detention.

Question: In light of the accused’s continued custody, what are the considerations for seeking interim bail or other relief while the writ petition is pending, and how can the counsel balance the urgency of release against the risk of prejudicing the writ application?

Answer: The counsel must evaluate the dual tracks of relief: the writ of habeas corpus and the ordinary bail application. While the writ itself is the primary vehicle for challenging the legality of the detention, the accused remains in custody, which creates immediate hardship and potential prejudice to the case. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court can file an interim bail application on the ground that the detention is not based on a criminal conviction and that the allegations are yet to be proven. The application should emphasize the lack of disclosed material, the alleged fabrication of statements, and the absence of any charge‑sheet, thereby satisfying the criteria for bail in preventive‑detention contexts. However, the counsel must be careful not to concede any factual basis for the detention that could be used by the State to argue that the order is regular. The bail application should be framed as a request for personal liberty pending the determination of the writ, without admitting the merits of the underlying allegations. Moreover, the counsel can seek a direction that the accused be placed under a form of supervised release, such as house arrest, to address any security concerns raised by the State, thereby demonstrating a cooperative stance. The strategic advantage of securing bail is twofold: it alleviates the immediate custodial hardship for the accused and it preserves the accused’s ability to actively participate in the preparation of the writ petition, including gathering evidence and coordinating with witnesses. On the other hand, the counsel must ensure that any bail order does not contain conditions that could be construed as an admission of guilt or that the accused has been properly informed of the grounds of detention, as such admissions could undermine the argument that the order is ultra vires. By carefully crafting the bail plea to focus on procedural irregularities and the need for liberty pending judicial review, the lawyer can obtain interim relief without compromising the substantive challenge before the High Court.

Question: What comprehensive High Court strategy should be adopted to combine the writ petition, document production, and possible revision or appeal routes, and how can lawyers in Chandigarh High Court ensure that the relief sought is both enforceable and sustainable?

Answer: A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court should adopt a multi‑pronged strategy that integrates the immediate writ petition with contingency plans for revision or appeal. The primary filing must articulate the constitutional violation, emphasizing the procedural defect of non‑disclosure, the alleged mala fide motive, and the denial of the accused’s right to know the material on which the Governor’s satisfaction rests. The petition should include a prayer for a declaration of voidness, an order directing the State to produce the investigative file, an affidavit from the Governor, and immediate release. Simultaneously, the counsel should attach an ancillary application for in‑camera inspection of the documents, thereby pre‑empting any claim of security‑related non‑disclosure. To safeguard the enforceability of any interim relief, the lawyer must request that the court issue a stay on any further action by the State that could impede the accused’s liberty, such as transfer to another facility or extension of the detention period. In the event that the High Court dismisses the writ or grants only partial relief, the counsel must be prepared to file a revision petition under the appropriate constitutional remedy, highlighting any error in law or jurisdiction. The revision should reiterate the same factual matrix and procedural deficiencies, ensuring that the record is preserved for a possible appeal to the Supreme Court. Throughout, the lawyer must maintain meticulous documentation of all orders, communications, and compliance (or lack thereof) by the State, as this evidentiary trail will be crucial in any higher‑court review. Additionally, the counsel should consider seeking a direction that the State deposit a bond or provide a guarantee for the accused’s appearance, thereby addressing any security concerns while reinforcing the sustainability of the relief. By aligning the writ petition with proactive requests for document production, in‑camera scrutiny, and clear procedural safeguards, the lawyers in Chandigarh High Court can maximize the chances of obtaining a robust, enforceable order that not only secures the accused’s release but also establishes a precedent for scrutinizing preventive‑detention orders in future cases.