Preventive detention requires prior subjective satisfaction; an earlier decision to detain before framing grounds shows non-application of mind.

In preventive detention, the detaining authority must first examine the material and form subjective satisfaction before the grounds of detention are prepared. Where the record shows that the authority had already decided to issue the detention order and only thereafter framed the grounds, the decision-making process is inverted and may indicate non-application of mind. On the stated facts, the endorsement to issue detention preceded preparation of the grounds, and the explanation that the material had been duly considered was not supported by the record. The detention order was therefore liable to be quashed for arbitrariness and non-application of mind.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated by non-application of mind inasmuch as the detaining authority had already decided to issue the detention order before the grounds of detention were actually formulated.

Analysis: The record showed that the detaining authority had, on 30 April 2007, made an endorsement indicating that the detention order should be issued and the investigating officer be consulted. The grounds of detention were prepared only thereafter. In a preventive detention matter, the authority must first examine the material and reach subjective satisfaction on the necessity of detention before the grounds are framed. If the decision to detain precedes the formulation of grounds, the process is inverted and the exercise of power becomes arbitrary. The record also did not support the explanation that the voluminous material was duly considered before the decision was taken.

Conclusion: The detention order was vitiated by non-application of mind and was liable to be quashed.

---