https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156699 In preventive detention, the detaining authority's satisfaction was treated as subjective, so the Court would not reweigh the sufficiency of the grounds, but would intervene only for non-application of mind, irrelevant material, improper purpose, or an irrational conclusion. The constitutional requirement to communicate the grounds of detention was limited to the basic facts and material particulars forming the foundation of detention; background or general information did not have to be disclosed if it did not contribute to the decision. On that basis, non-communication of the history-sheet material and the separate "other particulars" sent for supervisory approval did not invalidate the detention or the State Government's approval. en-us Tue, 26 Nov 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Jan 2026 12:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156699 In preventive detention, the detaining authority's satisfaction was treated as subjective, so the Court would not reweigh the sufficiency of the grounds, but would intervene only for non-application of mind, irrelevant material, improper purpose, or an irrational conclusion. The constitutional requirement to communicate the grounds of detention was limited to the basic facts and material particulars forming the foundation of detention; background or general information did not have to be disclosed if it did not contribute to the decision. On that basis, non-communication of the history-sheet material and the separate "other particulars" sent for supervisory approval did not invalidate the detention or the State Government's approval. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 26 Nov 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156699