Exclusion of extraneous factors and personal predilections in detention orders

Detaining authorities must exercise their statutory powers with utmost caution, circumspection, and neutrality, ensuring that detention orders remain completely free from extraneous considerations. An order of detention must not evince personal predilections, frustration over court orders granting bail, or an intention to keep an accused behind bars at any cost. Expressing a mindset aimed at overreaching judicial forums or avoiding judicial scrutiny by invoking stringent preventive detention laws invalidates the entire administrative exercise. When the language of the detention order reveals an unyielding resolve to detain a person irrespective of due criminal process, it reflects improper motive and legal malice. The extraordinary power of preventive detention is meant to prevent future harm to society, not to serve as a punitive tool to bypass trial court decisions. Courts will strictly examine the phrasing of detention orders to ensure that extra or unwarranted sentences reflecting institutional bias do not find a place. Consequently, the presence of extraneous factors or overreaching statements destroys the legality of the detention order. (Roshini Devi v. The State of Telangana and Others | 2026 INSC 41)