Preventive detention requires relevant material showing real future threat to public order; orders failed for lack of such basis.

Preventive detention under the National Security Act requires the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction to be based on relevant material showing a real likelihood of future prejudicial conduct affecting public order. The power is preventive, not punitive, so past acts alone are insufficient unless they support an apprehension of repetition. On the facts, no material showed that the detenus would repeat the alleged misconduct or otherwise act prejudicially to public order. The detention orders were therefore unsustainable and were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether detention orders passed under the National Security Act could be sustained when no relevant material existed to support the authority's satisfaction that the detenus would in future act prejudicially to the maintenance of public order.

Analysis: Preventive detention is intended to forestall anticipated prejudicial conduct and is not a punitive measure for past acts. The statutory power can be exercised only on the basis of material showing a likelihood of future conduct harmful to the interests protected by the Act. Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is necessary, but it must rest on some pertinent material; the Court was concerned with the existence of such material, not its adequacy. On the facts found, there was no material indicating that the detenus would repeat the alleged misconduct or otherwise act to the prejudice of public order.

Conclusion: The detention orders were unsustainable and were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order cannot stand unless the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction is founded on relevant material showing a real basis for apprehending future prejudicial conduct affecting public order.

---