https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182924 Delegation under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules did not divest the State Government of its own detention power, so it remained competent to issue the detention order. A detention order was also not invalid merely because it reflected the successive satisfaction of two Ministers and was later authenticated as one composite order. The making of a fresh detention order during pending habeas corpus proceedings did not by itself establish mala fides; absent proof of bad faith, no malice in law arose. The Court further held that the sufficiency of the material underlying the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction was not justiciable, so no infirmity in the basis of detention was shown. en-us Mon, 17 Jan 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 May 2016 17:59:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182924 Delegation under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules did not divest the State Government of its own detention power, so it remained competent to issue the detention order. A detention order was also not invalid merely because it reflected the successive satisfaction of two Ministers and was later authenticated as one composite order. The making of a fresh detention order during pending habeas corpus proceedings did not by itself establish mala fides; absent proof of bad faith, no malice in law arose. The Court further held that the sufficiency of the material underlying the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction was not justiciable, so no infirmity in the basis of detention was shown. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 17 Jan 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182924