Preventive detention and subjective satisfaction fail where the record shows weak material and no proper application of mind.

Preventive detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act remains subject to judicial review where the grounds are alleged to be mala fide, mechanical, or based on irrelevant material. A prior criminal discharge does not automatically preclude detention on the same facts, but it is a relevant circumstance, particularly if the discharge reflects lack of sufficient material. On the facts noted, the explanation that railway witnesses feared to testify was considered too tenuous, and the absence of an affidavit from the District Magistrate undermined the record of subjective satisfaction. The detention order was therefore treated as lacking proper application of mind and was invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 was vitiated by non-application of mind and colorable exercise of power in view of the petitioner's discharge in the criminal cases, the police final reports, and the absence of an affidavit by the detaining authority.

Analysis: Preventive detention founded on subjective satisfaction is not immune from judicial scrutiny where the grounds are challenged as mala fide, mechanical, or based on irrelevant or illusory material. A criminal discharge does not by itself bar detention on the same facts, but it is a relevant circumstance, especially where the discharge appears to rest on the absence of sufficient material rather than merely on witnesses being afraid. The Court found the explanation that the witnesses, who were public servants attached to the railway administration, were afraid to testify against the detenu to be too tenuous in the absence of an affidavit from the District Magistrate himself explaining how he reached his satisfaction. The record did not adequately show that the detaining authority had applied his mind to the police reports and the circumstances of discharge, and the order appeared to be a cloak to avoid ordinary prosecution.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid for want of proper application of mind and the petitioner was entitled to be released.

---