Detention order invalid for lack of genuine satisfaction where grounds were copied without real application of mind.

A detention order depriving personal liberty must reflect genuine application of mind and the detaining authority's proper satisfaction under the statute. Here, although the order stated six grounds in language closely tracking the statutory grounds, the supporting affidavit referred only to two grounds and did not show that each ground had been independently considered. The discrepancy, together with the disjunctive wording used in the order, indicated that the authority had merely reproduced the statutory language instead of assessing the real necessity for detention. The Supreme Court held the detention order invalid for lack of proper application of mind and genuine satisfaction, and the detainee was entitled to release.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was invalid for want of real application of mind and proper satisfaction of the detaining authority.

Analysis: A detention order depriving a citizen of personal liberty must be made with due care and caution and in conformity with the statutory purpose of the detention law. The order in question set out six grounds in a form closely tracking the statutory grounds, but the supporting affidavit referred only to two grounds and did not show that the authority had addressed each of the grounds stated in the order. The use of disjunctive wording in the order and the discrepancy between the order and the affidavit indicated that the authority had merely copied the statutory language without applying its mind to the real necessity for detention.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid as it was made without proper application of mind and without the requisite genuine satisfaction of the authority; the petitioner was entitled to release.

---