The grounds of detention must be specific and provide sufficient information to the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation. The detaining authority must apply its mind to the case and consider all relevant material before reaching a decision. The grounds of detention must be based on material which is relevant and exists.

Lahiri, J. :- The petitioner has been detained by the State Government under S.3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, for short "the Act" for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to (1) the maintenance of "public order", and (2) the supplies and services essential to the community. The petitioner has questioned the validity of his detention in this Habeas Corpus application.

2. The competent authority may detain any person under the Act on the basis of "subjective satisfaction" reached by it However, the power of detention is limited to certain activities only, namely, if the activities are prejudicial to the security of the State and/or prejudicial to public order and/or prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. This is a preventive measure and detention is permissible even on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.

3. The petitioner has questioned the validity of the detention and complains, inter alia, that the grounds are non-existent, there is total non-application of the mind of the detaining authority and it has acted in excess of power which the legislature confided in it.

4. Whenever and wherever human liberty is in peril and justice is threatened, the citizen must receive the fullest protection from the Court, within the four corners of Art 22 of the Constitution benignly stretched. The safeguards provided under the Constitution and "the Act" should be liberally interpreted, of course, within the legitimate limit The cherished personal liberty, worth of human dignity and liberty are cherished value which must be watched over by the court However, at the same time we must bear in mind that the survival of the State and the protection of society are no less important It is always necessary, just and prudent to balance the two competitive forces which run parallel to each other. Detention without trial being a serious matter the order of detention must be justified by the detaining authority.

5. While dealing with such Habeas Corpus matters one cannot overlook the limitations of judicial review. In such cases the Court cannot consider the propriety or sufficiency of the grounds on which the subjective satisfaction is based. However, the Court can consider whether the grounds have a rational probative value and not extraneous to the purpose of detention. We cannot substitute our own opinion for that of the detaining authority by applying objective test to decide the necessity of detention for a specified purpose. While considering the grounds, we must consider that the action is anticipatory one and is primarily based on suspicion or anticipated mischief. We cannot interfere with the order of detention if there is some material in the grounds upon which a reasonable man may form the subjective satisfaction. This Court can consider whether the grounds are germane to the reasons or purposes for the detention. The reason for this restrictive view is the meaning of the expressions "subjective satisfaction". The term 'subjective' means pertaining or relating to the subject, namely, the detaining authority. The term satisfaction relates to the "thinking" of the detaining authority. The term has a reference to the mental element of the subject, i.e. the desires or feelings of the detaining authority. In a wider sense the term "satisfaction" may include "pleasure". However, in the context in which the term 'satisfaction' has been used indicates that there must be a state of mind which has satisfied or contented occasioned by some facts, events or state of things. Therefore it is not an absolute pleasure on the basis of which a person can be detained. A satisfaction cannot be formed on vacuum. There must exist some facts, some events or some state of things to reach the subjective satisfaction for a valid order of detention under 'the Act'. Therefore, we find that grounds are required to be furnished to the detenu which must contain basic facts and m