Preventive detention and retracted confession: failure to independently consider the retraction vitiated the detention order.

Preventive detention based on an inculpatory confession was held unsustainable where the detaining authority did not independently consider the detenu's prompt retraction or record reasons rejecting it before forming subjective satisfaction. Mere reference to the retraction was insufficient; the authority had to apply its mind to that material. On the facts, that safeguard was absent, so the detention orders were vitiated and quashed. The detenus' continued custody for several months also supported immediate release once the orders were found invalid, subject to any other pending case or cause.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a preventive detention order is vitiated when the detaining authority fails to independently consider and record its opinion on the detenu's retraction of an inculpatory confession before arriving at subjective satisfaction. (ii) Whether the continued detention and the length of custody justified quashing of the detention orders and immediate release of the detenus.

Issue (i): Whether a preventive detention order is vitiated when the detaining authority fails to independently consider and record its opinion on the detenu's retraction of an inculpatory confession before arriving at subjective satisfaction.

Analysis: The detention orders were founded on a confession statement made at the time of arrest, but the detenu had promptly retracted it by a separate letter. The grounds of detention did not show that the detaining authority had independently applied its mind to the retraction or recorded a written opinion before relying on the confession. In preventive detention matters, reliance on an inculpatory statement requires the authority to consider the retraction and reject it with reasons, since mere reference to the retraction is insufficient. On the facts, that safeguard was absent.

Conclusion: The detention orders were vitiated and liable to be quashed on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the continued detention and the length of custody justified quashing of the detention orders and immediate release of the detenus.

Analysis: The detenus had already undergone substantial detention for several months, while the detention order was for a longer period. The Court treated the prolonged custody as an additional circumstance supporting the grant of immediate release once the detention orders were found unsustainable.

Conclusion: Immediate release of the detenus was warranted, subject to their not being required in any other case or cause.

Final Conclusion: The habeas corpus petitions succeeded, the impugned preventive detention orders were quashed, and the detenus were directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case or cause.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention based on an inculpatory confession, the detaining authority must independently consider the detenu's retraction and record its rejection before forming subjective satisfaction; failure to do so vitiates the detention order.

---