Preventive detention fails for non-application of mind where relied-upon material was considered piecemeal and inconsistently disclosed.

Preventive detention was invalid where the authority failed to show conscious and full consideration of all relied-upon material before recording subjective satisfaction. The record indicated that documents were supplied piecemeal, with additional material reaching the detaining authority even up to the date of the detention order, while the affidavits were vague and contradictory as to what was received when. On that defective record, the HC held that the order suffered from total non-application of mind and could not be sustained; the detention order was quashed and release directed if the detenu was not otherwise required.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated by non-application of mind because the relied upon documents were supplied and considered in a piecemeal manner and the affidavits of the detaining and sponsoring authorities were vague and contradictory.

Analysis: The record showed that the proposal and relied upon material were forwarded on different dates, with additional documents continuing to reach the detaining authority even up to the date of the detention order. The affidavits did not clearly disclose which documents were received with the proposal and which were received later, and the explanation given was found to be confusing and inconsistent. The Court held that in preventive detention matters the authority must demonstrate conscious consideration of the material forming the basis of subjective satisfaction, and a vague or contradictory record showing last-minute receipt of material undermines that satisfaction. The Court distinguished the authorities relied on by the respondents on their facts and held that those decisions did not justify the defective process shown in the present case.

Conclusion: The detention order was vitiated by total non-application of mind and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the preventive detention order was quashed, and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order is invalid where the material relied upon is not shown to have been consciously and fully considered before recording subjective satisfaction, and the record instead reveals piecemeal receipt of documents, vague disclosure, and contradictory explanations indicating non-application of mind.

---