The plea filed by Gill, who is also a resident of Punjab, argues that his detention under NSA is arbitrary and illegal. He claims that he was not given a fair chance to defend himself before the authorities. He further alleges that the authorities have not provided him with adequate legal representation. The plea also highlights the lack of evidence against Gill, claiming that the authorities have not presented any concrete evidence to justify his detention under the NSA.

This statement is based on the argument that the second detention order is a continuation of the first order, and therefore, the grounds for detention should be the same. If the grounds for detention are different, it suggests that the detaining authority is acting under political pressure. Let’s break down this argument:

**1. The Second Detention Order as a Continuation:**

The argument hinges on the premise that the second detention order is a continuation of the first order. This means the detaining authority is simply extending the initial detention period, rather than issuing a new order for a different reason.

This statement, while seemingly simple, carries significant weight. It signifies a postponement of a decision, a delay in the resolution of a matter. The reason for this delay is not explicitly stated, but it is implied that the matter is complex, requiring further investigation and deliberation. The date of September 18th serves as a clear indication of the desired timeline for the decision. It provides a deadline for the parties involved to gather more information, analyze the situation, and formulate a well-informed opinion.