The satisfaction of the detaining authority under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules is subjective and not open to judicial review on its merits, except on limited grounds such as mala fides, dishonesty, fraud, or abuse of power.

VEERASWAMI, J. :- This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution and S. 491, Cri. P.C., for a writ in the nature of Habeus Corpus directing release of the petitioner from detention. He was apprehended at about midnight on 16-2-1965 at his residence at Madras by the first respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Intelligence), Madras, and has been taken to Palayamcottai and detained at the Borstal School there from the morning of the 18th. At 9 a.m. on that day, he was served with the order of detention made under R. 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. He is a member of the Madras Legislative Assembly and Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He is a member of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and is said to be the treasurer and leading member of the working committee of the party. He alleges in his affidavit that he was a signatory to a resolution passed on 8-1-1965 by the working committee of his party to treat 26-1-1965 as a day of mourning, because Hindi as the official language would come into operation on that day and the use of the English language would become permissive or optional and that the party' s programme was to hold meetings, condemn the imposition of Hindi as official language, to wear badges and hoist black flags within one' s home, but no processions were authorised by the party and no violence has ever been countenanced.

According to him, the Chief Minister of Madras, the 4th respondent, threatened his party with dire consequences if they were to observe 26-1-1965 as a mourning day and the Chief Minister and his partymen made provocative speeches against the D.M.K. party members both on the floor of the Legislative Assembly and outside at public places. The petitioner was to have addressed a meeting at Coimbatore on 26-1-1965. But, the previous night, on his way to Coimbatore, he was arrested at Karur later taken to Tiruchlrapalli sub-jail and released on or about 2-2-1965. He says he is the editor of a paper called "Murasoli" and in that paper he published, since 14-2-1965, editorials and a series of cartoons attacking the 4th respondent on his political acts and policies. In this background, says the petitioner, his speeches, cartoons and editorials infuriated the fourth respondent and the order of his detention has been politically motivated and also motivated by the personal animosity and grudge against him of the 4th respondent and is mala fide and constitutes a fraudulent exercise of power. The petitioner further states that the use of Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, instead of the Preventive Detention Act, constitutes proof of mala fides and that the order of detention could not be considered to be one under that rule, as there could not have been satisfaction to the Governor who passed it and the order itself did not disclose the individual person who was satisfied before making it. The petitioner, in short, urges that the detention order is mala fide and illegal.

2. The 4th respondent has personally sworn to a counter-affidavit totally refuting and denying the petitioner' s allegations and maintaining that the detention order was passed only on the basis of information duly received by Government through its official channels, regarding the activities of the petitioner which, in the opinion of the Government, rendered his detention necessary to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of public order. He also has specifically denied that the detention order was mala fide, or was made out of political vindictiveness or personal ill-will or fury against the petitioner. He says that, in fact, there was nothing personal either in his speeches or exchanges between him as the head of the Government and the petitioner as the Opposition leader in the Legislative Assembly and that the detention order was made only after being satisfied on the basis of materials and reports officially received by the Government.

The petitioner, in his s