TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the detention orders under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 were vitiated for want of real subjective satisfaction and non-application of mind by the detaining authority; (ii) Whether the declarations made under Section 9(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 could survive once the detention orders were quashed.
Issue (i): Whether the detention orders under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 were vitiated for want of real subjective satisfaction and non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
Analysis: Preventive detention requires a pre-requisite subjective satisfaction based on relevant material of rationally probative value. That satisfaction is reviewable where the authority has not applied its mind, has acted mechanically, or could not realistically have considered the volume and nature of the material placed before it. On the records, the proposal, draft grounds, and connected papers were placed before the Home Commissioner only late on 7-3-1991, after extensive processing by the departmental offices and the Law Department. The timing and movement of the file showed that the authority could not have adequately scrutinised the voluminous material before endorsing approval, and the asserted independent satisfaction was not credible.
Conclusion: The detention orders were invalid for non-application of mind and absence of genuine subjective satisfaction, and therefore could not be sustained.
Issue (ii): Whether the declarations made under Section 9(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 could survive once the detention orders were quashed.
Analysis: The declarations were issued in aid of the impugned detention orders and were consequential to them. Once the foundational detention orders failed, the declarations had no independent footing.
Conclusion: The declarations also had to be quashed as they could not survive the invalidation of the detention orders.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, the preventive detention orders were set aside, and the consequential declarations were also annulled.
Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order is liable to be struck down where the record shows that the detaining authority did not genuinely apply its mind to the relevant material and the asserted subjective satisfaction is therefore illusory; consequential declarations based on such an order also fall.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
