Preventive detention based on mixed grounds fails when an irrelevant ground may have affected subjective satisfaction.

A preventive detention order based on multiple grounds fails if one ground is irrelevant, non-existent, or unessential and the Court cannot safely conclude that the detaining authority would have reached the same subjective satisfaction on the remaining ground alone. Here, a solitary murderous assault was treated as a law and order matter and not a public order ground, while the separate incident of setting fire to a school was relevant to public order. Because the irrelevant ground was not merely minor and its exclusion could have affected subjective satisfaction, the detention order was invalid and was struck down.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated because one of the two grounds was irrelevant to public order and its exclusion might have affected the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction.

Analysis: The detention was founded on two grounds. One ground concerned a solitary murderous assault on an individual and did not disclose facts showing a disturbance of public order; it was therefore treated as a law and order matter only. The other ground, relating to setting fire to a school, was germane to public order. Where detention rests on multiple grounds and one ground is non-existent, irrelevant, or unessential, the order fails if the Court cannot say that the authority would have reached the same subjective satisfaction on the remaining ground alone. Applying that principle, the irrelevant ground was not of such a minor nature that it could safely be ignored.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid and liable to be struck down; the petition was allowed.

---