As per case facts, the Petitioner was arrested, an FIR was lodged, and a preventive detention Order was issued by the District Magistrate under NSA, which was subsequently approved and ... confirmed by the State Government. The Petitioner challenged this detention in a Writ Petition before the High Court arguing that the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction regarding the imminent possibility of bail was flawed, and that fixing time frames (12 days for detaining authority, 3 weeks for State and Central Governments) for making representations infringed Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The question arose whether the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction was valid and if the imposed time limits for representations violated the detenu's fundamental rights. Finally, the Supreme Court found the subjective satisfaction flawed due to a lack of application of mind and insufficient rationally probative material. It also ruled that fixing time limits for representations, especially to the State and Central Governments, infringed the Petitioner's sacrosanct right under Article 22(5) as there should be no period of limitation, thus setting aside the detention Order and directing the Petitioner's immediate release if not required in connection with any other case.