there is little scope for generalisation; that curtain has to be drawn round a detenu to ensure effective ness of detention which cannot be sacrificed in the interest of security of the State; that the observations made by the majority in Shivakant Shukla 's case (supra) regarding the area of judicial interference which are sought to be relied upon on behalf of the detenus relate to the obvious eases where the Executive itself could not and would not seek to defend a detention order and can be of no assistance in the present cases where the detenus seek to 734 enforce a right to do something or to get something which is not con t:erred on and given to them by law; that any right to personal liberty or any facet or aspect thereof has to be found in some constitutional provision to be enforced in normal times and ex hypothesi to become unenforceable during an emergency and reference to Articles 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution completely ignores the fact that these rights postulate a free citizen and cannot be enforced independent ly of Article 21 or Article 19 of the Constitution and in any case, the rights claimed in the present cases have no relation to those Articles.