Preventive detention delay can break the live-link between alleged conduct and detention, invalidating the order.

Unexplained and undue delay in passing a preventive detention order can break the live-link between the alleged prejudicial activity and the necessity for detention. The Court noted that the order was made several months after the last incident, after the proposal had already been submitted, and that the witness statements were recorded only after the detenu had obtained bail. Applying the test of proximity and satisfactory explanation for delay, the Court held that the delay vitiated the detention order and the challenge succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether unexplained delay in passing the preventive detention order vitiated the detention.

Analysis: The detention order was made several months after the last prejudicial incident and after the proposal had been submitted, while the witness statements relied upon were recorded only after the detenu had secured bail in the prohibition cases. The governing test is whether the prejudicial activity remains proximate to the order and whether the detaining authority has furnished a satisfactory and reasonable explanation for the delay. Delay is not fatal in every case, but where it is undue and unexplained, the live-link between the activity and the need for detention may be broken.

Conclusion: The unexplained delay vitiated the detention order, and the challenge succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, unexplained and undue delay in passing the detention order can break the live-link between the prejudicial activity and the necessity for detention and invalidate the order.

---