Preventive detention based on multiple grounds fails when non-existent grounds may have influenced subjective satisfaction.

A preventive detention order founded on several grounds will be invalid if some substantial grounds are non-existent or irrelevant and the court cannot safely treat them as severable from the authority's subjective satisfaction. The Court applied the rule that irrelevant or bad grounds may vitiate the whole order where it is not possible to say they were inconsequential to the decision-maker's satisfaction. On the facts, two of the alleged smuggling grounds did not support detention, so the order was quashed and release directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a detention order based on multiple grounds is invalid when some of the grounds are found to be non-existent or irrelevant.

Analysis: The detention was founded on alleged smuggling of three commodities, but two of them were found not to be essential commodities. In preventive detention, where the statutory authority acts on subjective satisfaction based on several grounds taken together, the validity of the order cannot be upheld by severing the bad grounds and retaining only the good one if it is not possible to say that the invalid grounds were inconsequential. The Court applied the principle that the exclusion of irrelevant or non-existent grounds may vitiate the entire order when they may have materially affected the authority's satisfaction.

Conclusion: The detention order was bad in law and was quashed; the detenu was directed to be released forthwith.

Final Conclusion: A preventive detention order founded on multiple grounds will fail if some of the substantial grounds are irrelevant or non-existent and the Court cannot safely treat them as severable from the authority's subjective satisfaction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a detention order rests on several grounds forming the basis of the authority's subjective satisfaction, the order is invalid if some substantial grounds are found to be non-existent or irrelevant and the Court cannot conclude that those grounds were inconsequential to the satisfaction recorded.

---