https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278062 A preventive detention order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 cannot be sustained against a person already in judicial custody unless the detaining authority shows material supporting a rational subjective satisfaction, including a real and proximate possibility of release and a corresponding apprehension of prejudicial conduct. In habeas corpus review, the State must disclose the facts and material on which that satisfaction was based, preferably through an affidavit of the authority that made the order. Here, the record did not explain the need for detention or the circumstances of the detenu's possible release, so the order was held invalid and quashed by the SC. en-us Wed, 15 Jan 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jan 2019 11:40:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278062 A preventive detention order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 cannot be sustained against a person already in judicial custody unless the detaining authority shows material supporting a rational subjective satisfaction, including a real and proximate possibility of release and a corresponding apprehension of prejudicial conduct. In habeas corpus review, the State must disclose the facts and material on which that satisfaction was based, preferably through an affidavit of the authority that made the order. Here, the record did not explain the need for detention or the circumstances of the detenu's possible release, so the order was held invalid and quashed by the SC. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 15 Jan 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278062