Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the order of preventive detention was vitiated for non-application of mind where the detaining authority merely approved the draft grounds and detention order prepared by officials.
Analysis: The detention power under the statute had to be exercised by the detaining authority itself, and the constitutional safeguards governing preventive detention required strict compliance with the prescribed procedure. The record showed that the draft grounds and detention order were prepared by subordinate and were then approved by the Lt. Governor. The use of the expression "approved" indicated confirmation of a pre-prepared draft rather than an independent subjective satisfaction based on an assessment of the material. Since approval is not the same as the formation of satisfaction required for detention, the authority had not applied its mind to the relevant material.
Conclusion: The detention order was vitiated by non-application of mind and was liable to be quashed in favour of the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the preventive detention order could not be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute requires the detaining authority to form its own satisfaction, a detention order is invalid if the authority merely approves a draft prepared by others without independent application of mind.