M.C. Chagla, C.J.
1. The detenu in this case was detained for the reason which was furnished to him by the Police Commissioner on April 7, 1948, that he was inciting a section of labourers of Tata Air India, Bombay, to use violence against the officers of Tata Air India, and that he was also inciting this section of workers to acts of sabotage. Now, it is a patent fact which has not been disputed by the Commissioner of Police in his affidavit that there is no such company in existence as 'Tata Air India.' What the Police Commissioner was meaning, according to him, was the Air India, Ltd., and he very naively says in his affidavit that he used the expression 'Tata Air India, Bombay' because according to him the Air India, Ltd., belongs to Tatas. That again is an incorrect statement. Air India, Ltd. does not belong to Tatas, it does not belong to anyone. It is a limited company and it belongs to shareholders of that company. Now, the Government Pleader has urged that the Commissioner of Police has described Air India, Ltd., popularly, and, if at all, the error is very slight. It has caused no prejudice to the detenu, and the detenu knew exactly what was being intended. In the first place, we are not at all sure that the detenu knew or understood what was the company intended by the Commissioner of Police. The Tatas are interested in more than one air company in India, and to describe the company as Tata Air India does not necessarily lead to the inference that the company intended by the Commissioner of Police was the Air India, Ltd. Apart from that a much more important question of principle is at stake. The detaining authority, as we have had occasion to point out several times, has such wide powers given to it under the statute that where the Court is left with any discretion at all to investigate the grounds given by the Commissioner of Police, the Court must do so vigilantly in order to find out whether that degree of care and caution has been exercised by the detaining authority which the law requires. The Commissioner of Police need give no particulars, need state no facts. He can take refuge behind.public interest and behind the language of Sections 2 and 3. But when he does give grounds-and those grounds have to be given by him as a statutory obligation-he must take meticulous care to see that whatever is stated in those grounds is stated with absolute accuracy. The emphasis is not so much on the accuracy, or on the nature or extent of the error; the emphasis is on the state of the mind of the detaining authority. If the state of the mind of the detaining authority discloses that he has been casual in his approach and that he has not applied his mind with that diligence which it is necessary when you are taking away the liberty of a subject, the Court will certainly interfere and will set at liberty the detenu arrested by the order of the detaining authority. In this case we are satisfied that there is an error. The error is by no means trivial and it shows want of due care and caution on the part of the detaining authority.
2. The rule will, therefore, be made absolute with costs. The detenu to be released immediately.