Preventive detention orders must strictly adhere to constitutional safeguards, including valid grounds for detention; reliance on previously quashed grounds is impermissible.

1. To deprive a man of his natural liberty, to deny him the ordinary amenities of life is worse than starving the body; it is starvation of the soul, the dweller in the body, "said Gandhi Ji" father of the nation." Right to personal liberty is heart and soul of the Constitution. The right in words of Supreme Court is "transcendental, inalienable and primordial." Right to personal liberty, it has been held, is not conferred by the State on a citizen. It is there because we are all members of human race. The right to personal liberty does not owe its origin to any of the constitutional provisions. The principle was succinctly stated by the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India , 2006 (8) SCC 212 : AIR 2007 SC 71 as under:--
"It is fallacy to regard fundamental rights as a gift from the State to its citizens. Individuals possess basic human rights independently of any Constitution by reason of the basic facts that they are members of the human race."
The Supreme Court in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu , 2011 (4) SCC 260 reiterated the principle:--
"Our Constitution makers had lived through bitter years and seen an alien Government trample upon human rights which the country had fought hard to preserve. They believed like Jefferson that "an elective despotism was not the Government we fought for." And, therefore, while arming the Government with large powers to prevent anarchy from within and consequent from without, they took care to ensure that those powers were not abused to mutilate the liberties of the people."

2. The preventive detention and a democratic set up do not go hand in hand. The democracy has its edifice on Rule of Law and the Rule of Law mandates that a person can be deprived of his personal liberty only when he is facing a criminal charge or has been convicted by a competent Court, of an offence punishable under law. Where a person is deprived of his personal liberty as an under - trial he faces a criminal charge, there is an implicit condition that he has full and fair opportunity to insist that the charge is groundless and where trial notwithstanding such plea proceeds -- he has a fair opportunity to cross - examine the witnesses, explain the material, if any, brought on the file against him and to adduce evidence in defence. A person placed in preventive detention and deprived of his personal liberty is not convicted by a Court of Law and remanded to prison to serve the sentence nor is a formal charge framed against him and he tried on such charge, and given an opportunity to deny the charge and set up his defence. A person on whom preventive detention is slapped is held in custody without charge or trial. The Detaining Authority deprives a person on whom preventive detention is slapped, on a mere suspicion that his apprehended activities are likely to prejudice "security of the State" or "public order." The Detaining Authority has power to place a person under detention on his subjective satisfaction that the grounds exist to put such person under preventive detention. The Court lacks power to dive deep into the facts to assess and evaluate as to whether the ground reasonably leads to such suspicion. This is the reason that Detaining Authority while exercising the powers under Detention Law is said to exercise, "jurisdiction of suspicion." The only safeguards that a person put under preventive detention as against the arbitrary exercis