G. Sadanandan v State of Kerala

Facts

The petitioner, a kerosene dealer, was detained under the Defence of India Rules to prevent activity prejudicial to the maintenance of essential supplies. It emerged that the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil Supplies Cell) had made a false report to eliminate the petitioner from the trade so that his own relative could obtain the kerosene distributorship. The D.S.P. filed no affidavit denying the allegations, and the Home Secretary's affidavit for the Government was vague and based on hearsay.

Issues

• Whether the detention order was vitiated by mala fides.
• What burden lies on the detaining authority once a prima facie case of mala fide or casual exercise of power is made out.

Arguments

The petitioner contended the detention was a colourable and mala fide exercise of power motivated by the D.S.P.'s desire to benefit a relative, and that his continued detention was unjustified once licensing was introduced. The State maintained the detention rested on the subjective satisfaction of the authority, which was not ordinarily open to judicial scrutiny.

Held

The Supreme Court declared the detention order 'clearly and plainly mala fide'. Although the reporting officer's malice could not by itself be attributed to the detaining authority, the authority had to show it carefully examined the report and the relevant material; the vague, hearsay-based Home Secretary's affidavit failed to establish this. Since detention rests on subjective satisfaction, once a prima facie case of mala fide or casual approach is made, the authority must place sufficient material on a proper affidavit denying the allegations. The casual and cavalier use of such unfettered powers, the Court warned, threatens the basic values of democratic life.

Ratio decidendi

Subjective-satisfaction discretionary powers (including preventive detention) are subject to judicial review for mala fides; once a prima facie case of bad faith or casual exercise is shown, the burden shifts to the authority to justify its action through a proper, particularised affidavit.

Significance

A leading authority on the control of mala fide and colourable exercise of administrative discretion even in the sensitive sphere of preventive detention, illustrating that 'subjective satisfaction' is not immune from writ review.

Related