Preventive detention and independent application of mind: verbatim dossier-based orders failed where custody was not considered.

Preventive detention requires the detaining authority to apply its own mind to the relevant material and record genuine satisfaction, especially where the proposed detenus are already in custody. A detention order based on a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier, with only personal particulars altered, indicates no independent consideration and cannot be sustained. If the record also shows no awareness of existing custody or assessment of the need for preventive detention despite that custody, the order is liable to be quashed. On the facts noted, the detention orders were quashed and release was directed unless the detenus were required in another case.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention orders were liable to be quashed for total non-application of mind by the detaining authority and for failure to consider that the detenus were already in custody.

Analysis: The grounds of detention were found to be a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier, with only the personal particulars altered, showing no independent application of mind by the District Magistrate. The record also disclosed no indication that the authority was aware that the petitioner and the other detenus were already in custody, nor that it had addressed the necessity of preventive detention despite such custody. In matters of preventive detention, the detaining authority must reach its own satisfaction on relevant material, and a casual or mechanical exercise cannot sustain the order.

Conclusion: The detention orders were quashed and the detenus were directed to be released forthwith unless required in connection with some other case.

---