Preventive detention requires full disclosure of vital material; omission of bail order and replies vitiates subjective satisfaction.

In preventive detention, all relevant and vital material bearing on the Detaining Authority's subjective satisfaction must be placed before it. A prior bail order imposing stringent conditions was material because it affected the detenu's legal status and antecedent conduct, and failure to consider it amounted to non-application of mind. The detenu's replies to show cause notices were also vital because the notices were relied upon in the detention grounds; considering the notices without the replies created an incomplete and unfair appreciation of the material. On that basis, withholding either category of document vitiated the detention order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-placement and non-consideration of the earlier bail order, which imposed stringent conditions on the detenu, vitiated the detention order for non-application of mind. (ii) Whether failure to place before the Detaining Authority the detenu's replies to the show cause notices, which had been relied upon in the grounds of detention, vitiated the detention order.

Issue (i): Whether non-placement and non-consideration of the earlier bail order, which imposed stringent conditions on the detenu, vitiated the detention order for non-application of mind.

Analysis: In preventive detention, every material that is relevant and vital and may influence the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority one way or the other must be placed before it. A prior bail order granting liberty on stringent conditions was capable of affecting that satisfaction, because it bore directly on the detenu's legal status and antecedent conduct. The omission to consider such an order deprived the Detaining Authority of material necessary for an informed decision.

Conclusion: The omission vitiated the detention order and was against the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to place before the Detaining Authority the detenu's replies to the show cause notices, which had been relied upon in the grounds of detention, vitiated the detention order.

Analysis: The show cause notices were treated as part of the material used to form the detention satisfaction, and the replies constituted the detenu's answer to the allegations. Those replies were therefore vital material and could have influenced the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. Considering only the notices without the replies amounted to an incomplete and unfair appreciation of the material, causing serious prejudice and non-application of mind.

Conclusion: The omission vitiated the detention order and was against the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention order could not be sustained because relevant and vital material was withheld from the Detaining Authority, so the detenu was entitled to release.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, withholding from the Detaining Authority any document that is relevant and vital to subjective satisfaction, including a prior bail order or the detenu's replies to relied-upon show cause notices, vitiates the detention order for non-application of mind.

---