Preventive detention references to prior quashed orders do not vitiate detention if not relied on for subjective satisfaction.

A preventive detention order is not invalid merely because it refers to earlier quashed detention orders, where those orders are not part of the material forming the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction. The court treated the references to prior detention history as background narration only, and found that reliance was placed on the contemporaneous incident and the statements and documents specifically identified as the basis of detention. On that footing, the challenge failed and the detention order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated because the grounds referred to earlier detention orders that had been quashed, and because the corresponding documents were supplied along with the detention record.

Analysis: The challenge failed because the material before the detaining authority showed that reliance was placed only on the contemporaneous incident and the statements and documents specifically listed as the basis of detention. The references to earlier detention orders were treated as part of the background narration and not as material forming the foundation of subjective satisfaction. Mere mention of prior detention history did not invalidate the order, and the question of severability of grounds did not arise when the earlier orders were not relied upon.

Conclusion: The detention order was not vitiated on account of reference to the earlier quashed detention orders or the supply of the related background documents.

Final Conclusion: The petition was found to be without merit and the detention order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order is not invalid merely because it refers to earlier quashed detention orders, so long as those orders are not relied upon as part of the material forming the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction.

---