Preventive detention invalidated for pre-determination where the detaining authority participated in the sponsoring process.

A preventive detention order is invalid where the detaining authority has actively ated in the sponsoring process, because subjective satisfaction must be formed independently and with an open mind on the materials placed before it. If the authority takes part in the sponsorship exercise or attests the sponsoring affidavit, that prior involvement indicates pre-determination and vitiates the detention. The Madras HC held that such participation goes to the root of the order and set aside the detention order on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was liable to be set aside on the ground that the detaining authority had pre-determined the matter by actively participating in the sponsoring process.

Analysis: The detaining authority must arrive at its satisfaction independently on the basis of the materials placed before it and must act with an open mind. Where the authority itself takes part in the sponsoring exercise, or attests the sponsoring affidavit, it indicates prior involvement in the detention proposal and gives rise to pre-determination. Such participation goes to the root of the detention and vitiates the order.

Conclusion: The detention order was vitiated by pre-determination and was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order is invalid if the detaining authority has actively participated in the sponsoring process, because that conduct undermines the requirement of independent subjective satisfaction.

---