Preventive detention declaration invalid for mechanical satisfaction based on inadequate and stale material

A declaration extending preventive detention under section 9(1) was invalid because the detaining authority lacked relevant material to form a genuine subjective satisfaction that the detenu was engaging, and was likely to engage, in transporting smuggled goods. Reliance on past incidents and older statements, without any post-release incident or current basis for the conclusion, showed that the satisfaction was mechanical rather than the result of informed consideration of relevant material. Continued detention could not therefore be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Validity of the declaration under section 9(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 on the ground that the authority recorded satisfaction without adequate material and without proper application of mind.

Analysis: The declaration under section 9(1) extended the detention period and therefore had to rest on material showing that the detenu was engaging and was likely to engage in transporting smuggled goods. The material relied upon consisted essentially of past incidents and statements relating to activities in 1973 and 1974. No incident after the detenu's release was shown, and the record did not support a finding that he was presently engaging in the prohibited activity. The satisfaction recorded in the declaration was therefore treated as mechanical rather than the result of a real and informed consideration of relevant material.

Conclusion: The declaration under section 9(1) was invalid and the continued detention could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A declaration extending preventive detention under section 9(1) is valid only when the detaining authority has relevant material to form a genuine subjective satisfaction that the detenu is engaging and is likely to engage in the proscribed activity; a mechanical or unsupported satisfaction is unlawful.

---