Preventive detention upheld where subjective satisfaction rested on relevant material and delay did not break the statutory nexus.

Preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act was upheld because the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction was based on relevant material, including the incident, bail history, and surrounding circumstances. Judicial review was confined to whether the grounds were germane to the statutory object, and the High Court was found to have substituted its own assessment for that of the authority. The Court also held that delay did not by itself snap the nexus between the alleged prejudicial activity and detention where the delay resulted from evasion of arrest and interim judicial protection. The quashing order was set aside and the detention order stood revived.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was liable to be quashed on the ground that the detaining authority had not applied its mind and whether the passage of time and interim protection had snapped the nexus between the alleged prejudicial activity and the proposed detention.

Analysis: Preventive detention rests on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, and judicial review is limited to examining whether the grounds are relevant to the statutory object and whether the authority acted on material germane to that purpose. The record showed consideration of the solitary incident, the earlier grant of bail, and the surrounding circumstances, and the Court held that the High Court had impermissibly substituted its own assessment for that of the detaining authority. On the question of delay, the Court distinguished the earlier precedent relied upon by the respondent, noting that the detention period there had expired long before the matter was heard, whereas here the delay was attributable to the detenu having evaded arrest and to interim judicial protection. The Court further held that mere passage of time did not, by itself, destroy the nexus unless the underlying circumstances had ceased to exist.

Conclusion: The detention order was valid and the High Court's quashing order could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's order was set aside, and the detention order stood revived subject to the Government's ability to act in accordance with the prevailing circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, the court cannot replace the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction with its own assessment if the decision is based on relevant material, and mere lapse of time does not invalidate detention unless the proximate nexus with the statutory object has genuinely snapped.

---