Preventive detention in custody requires a rational basis and material showing likely release before detention can stand.

A preventive detention order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 cannot be sustained against a person already in judicial custody unless the detaining authority shows material supporting a rational subjective satisfaction, including a real and proximate possibility of release and a corresponding apprehension of prejudicial conduct. In habeas corpus review, the State must disclose the facts and material on which that satisfaction was based, preferably through an affidavit of the authority that made the order. Here, the record did not explain the need for detention or the circumstances of the detenu's possible release, so the order was held invalid and quashed by the SC.

---

---

Issues: Whether a preventive detention order under section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 could be sustained when the detenu was already in judicial custody and the record did not disclose material showing a rational basis for the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction.

Analysis: The statutory power of preventive detention depends on the detaining authority being satisfied that detention is necessary to prevent prejudicial activity. Where the person is already in custody, the order can stand only if the authority shows material indicating a real and proximate possibility of release and a corresponding basis for apprehending prejudicial conduct thereafter. In a habeas corpus challenge, the State must place before the Court the material facts supporting that satisfaction, and the affidavit should come from the authority that made the order, especially where colourable exercise of power is alleged. The record here did not explain why the detenu, who was in custody when the order was made, required preventive detention, nor did it disclose the circumstances of his discharge in the criminal cases or the material on which the authority acted. The absence of such disclosure left the detention vulnerable as a mechanical use of preventive power to bypass the ordinary criminal process.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid and liable to be quashed; the issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order against a person already in custody is unlawful unless the authority places material before the Court showing a rational basis for subjective satisfaction, including the real possibility of release and a proximate apprehension of prejudicial conduct.

---