Preventive detention orders should be passed only on the basis of cogent materials from which an inference could be drawn of the possibility of the accused indulging in activities prejudicial to maintenance of public order if he is at large and “not on the ipse dixit of the detaining authority,” the Madras High Court Bench here has observed.
A Division Bench of Justices S. Manikumar and V.S. Ravi said though invoking a preventive detention law depended on the subjective satisfaction of Collectors and Commissioners of Police, such satisfaction “should be on the basis of materials by which a person with a clear mind would arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to whether the individual concerned should be detained.”
The Bench went on to state: “It suffices if the detaining authority is satisfied about the genuineness of the documents relevant for the purpose of arriving at the satisfaction. The authority should not consider extraneous matters and his/her decision should not be unlawful, mala fide, in excess of jurisdiction or contrary to the procedure established by law.”
The judges also held that while examining the validity of preventive detention orders, courts should only look for relevancy and not sufficiency of materials relied upon by the detaining authority. “It is one thing to state that the detaining authority has considered a material which is totally irrelevant and another to observe that the material considered by him, is not sufficient to arrive at the conclusion,” they said.
Writing the judgement, Mr. Justice Manikumar said: “It is not for the Court to sit in judgment over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and consider whether materials are sufficient or adequate. Material considered may not be adequate or sufficient but still it could be relevant. Court cannot predict as to what material the detaining authority is expected to consider as relevant. But that can be tested.”
Further, holding that materials relied upon by the detaining authorities should be germane, relevant and not vague, extraneous, indefinite or non-existent, the judge said while invoking preventive detention laws against an undertrial prisoner, the detaining authority could rely upon bail granted to accused in similar cases to substantiate the apprehension of the prisoner also being enlarged on bail.
