Detention orders are invalid if essential material confirming the detenu's judicial custody is not presented to the Detaining Authority.

1. In these two writ petitions, the petitioners who have been detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as bootleggers, have challenged their detentions, and they pray for quashing the orders of detention and consequentially for their release.

2. Though number of points were raised in the affidavit as well as advanced before us, ultimately it was found that one common question of law survives for our detailed consideration.

3. The admitted facts are, the Detaining Authority, who is the same in both the cases, has stated in the grounds of detention that the individual to be detained in each case (petitioners herein) was on remand. This statement of fact finds a place in the paragraph of the detention order in which the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction as regards the compelling necessity to clamp orders of detention on the said individuals. It is again common ground that except the remand application, no order of remand as such passed by a Judicial Magistrate was placed before the Detaining Authority. The Paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention in W.P. No. 9240 of 1992 reads as follows: -
"I am aware that Thiru Ravi is on remand and there is imminent possibility that he may come out of Court bail, for the offence u / S. 4(1) (i) and 4(1 - A) (ii) T.N. P. Act r / w 328, IPC. If he comes out on bail, he would indulge in further activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further, the recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of preventing him from indulging in prejudicial activities. Therefore, I am of the view that there is a compelling necessity to detain him with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and I am satisfied that activities Thiru Ravi warrant his detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14, 1982."
Similarly, in W.P. No. 9346 of 1992, paragraph 5 in the grounds of detention reads as follows: -
"I am aware that Thiru Abdul Majeed is on remand and he has imminent possibility to come out on bail for the offences u / S. 4(1) (i) r/w 4 (1 - A) (ii) Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and 328, IPC. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further, the course to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and therefore, I am of the view that there is a compelling necessity to detain him with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. However, I am satisfied that the activities of Thiru Abdul Majeed warrant his detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 ." .
 (Underlining ours)
The Common question of law that has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the cases is, that for arriving at a subjective satisfaction as regards the compelling necessity to clamp orders of detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 , judicial orders passed on remand applications or atleast substance of the same should have been placed before the Detaining Authority, and the failure to do so vitiates the detention order. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited number of Authorities on the aspect of and consequence of non - placing of vital documents before the Detaining Authority.

4. Mr. I. Subramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in answering the above contention, submitted that it is not necessary that the judicial order of remand should be placed before the Detaining Authority to enable him to arrive at subje