Preventive detention cannot rest on a quashed prior order; reliance on irrelevant material taints subjective satisfaction.

Preventive detention requires strict compliance with constitutional safeguards, and a fresh detention order is vitiated if the detaining authority relies on an earlier order that has already been quashed, because such reliance introduces extraneous and irrelevant material into the subjective satisfaction process. The reference to the struck-down order was treated as a real basis for detention, so the defect was not cured by severability. The detention order was therefore held illegal and could not stand, though the authority was left free to consider passing a fresh detention order on the same facts if so advised.

---

---

Issues: Whether the preventive detention order was vitiated because the detaining authority took into account an earlier detention order that had been quashed, thereby affecting its subjective satisfaction, and whether the impugned order could be set aside with liberty to pass a fresh order on the same facts.

Analysis: Preventive detention is a serious curtailment of personal liberty and must rest on strict compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards. Where an earlier detention order has already been struck down, reliance upon that earlier order as part of the basis for a fresh order is impermissible, because it can amount to consideration of extraneous and irrelevant material and can taint the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction. The reference to the earlier quashed order was not merely narrative; it positively influenced the decision to detain. Although the severability principle was invoked, it does not cure defects arising from the reasons that prevailed upon the authority to exercise the power of detention. At the same time, the Court considered it appropriate to preserve the Government's power to proceed afresh if so advised, by revoking the defective order and permitting a fresh order on the same facts.

Conclusion: The detention order was illegal and could not stand, but it was set aside with liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh detention order on the same set of facts if so considered necessary.

---