Preventive detention fails where a vital retraction is withheld from the Detaining Authority, undermining subjective satisfaction.

Non-placement before the Detaining Authority of a detenu's second handwritten retraction, made after a Section 108 Customs Act statement, vitiated the preventive detention order for non-application of mind. The second retraction was a vital document bearing directly on the subjective satisfaction required for detention, and all material available to the sponsoring authority had to be placed before the Detaining Authority for independent assessment. The omission was held incurable by a later claim that the same conclusion would have been reached even if the document had been considered, and the writ petition succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-placement before the Detaining Authority of the detenu's second handwritten retraction dated 2 December 2002 vitiated the detention order for non-application of mind.

Analysis: The detention rested materially on the detenu's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the subsequent retractions. The second retraction was a relevant and potentially influential document bearing directly on the subjective satisfaction required for preventive detention. In preventive detention matters, all vital materials available to the sponsoring authority must be placed before the Detaining Authority so that it may independently assess the necessity of detention. The omission could not be cured by an ex post assertion that the same conclusion would have been reached even if the document had been considered.

Conclusion: The non-consideration of the second retraction vitiated the detention order, and the writ petition succeeded.

---