Constitution by his mother, Aruna Sen. Writ petitions are an indirect system of judicial review in Bangladesh. After much effort, she learned that her son had been handed over to the Special Branch of the Police Department and was in custody at Mohammadpur Police Station within Dhaka City. She visited her son and found him in a miserable condition. Signs of physical torture were visible on his whole body. The case of the government was that the detainee had been held under section 3 of the Special Powers Act, 1974, for various activities such as illegal possession of arms, robberies and murders. Judgement The court observed the following: It is further observed in Aruna Sen's case that an order of detention of malafide or collated purpose is illegal, it must be shown that the grounds of detention are relevant and do not suffer from vagueness, are not indefinite and are not such as to deprive the detained person of his constitutional and legal right of making an effective representation against his detention at the earliest opportunity as provided in clause (5) of Article 33 of the Constitution and subsection (1) of section 8 of the Special Powers Act, 1974. It is also held in that case that if some of the grounds are irrelevant or non-existent, the satisfaction of the detaining authority, in that particular case, may be said to have been caused by both valid and invalid grounds and such satisfaction cannot be held to be sufficient compliance with the requirement of law. Similarly, on question relating to furnishing of grounds of detention to the detenu as required by clause (5) of Article 33 of the Constitution and sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Special Powers Act, 1974, it is held that if some of the grounds are vague and indefinite although some other grounds are not so, the constitutional and legal requirements of the above provisions cannot be said to have been complied with. Significance The case set a precedent against unlawful and preventive detention. Most of the detentions under the Special Powers Act were found invalid because of procedural irregularities or because the evidence was insufficient to warrant the assumption that a detainee was likely to commit a "prejudicial act". In one case the court went so far as to assert that hardly any real case occurred when the provision containing a "threat to the security