Reason To Believe

Statutes often use expressions such as “deems it necessary”, “reason to believe” etc. Suffice it to say that these expressions have been held not to mean the subjective satisfaction of the officer concerned. Such power given to the concerned officer is not an arbitrary power and has to be exercised in accordance with the restraints imposed by law. 

Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman, Tata Chemicals v. Commissioner of Customs, [Civil Appeal Nos. 7439-7440 of 2004].

Also see, A.S. Krishnan v. State of Kerala, (2004) 11 SCC 576.


Issues with “subjective satisfactions” ?

In cases where the decision is based on subjective satisfaction if some of the reasons turn out to be irrelevant or invalid, it would be impossible for a Court to find out which of the reasons, relevant or irrelevant, valid or invalid, had brought about such satisfaction.

Hon’ble Justice J.M. Shelat, Zora Singh v. J.M. Tandon, AIR 1971 SC 1537.