Preventive detention and delay: mere passage of time did not invalidate detention where prejudicial activity justified continued satisfaction.

A preventive detention order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 was challenged on the ground that it was made about five months after the last incident relied upon. The Supreme Court held that mere lapse of time, by itself, does not invalidate detention where the grounds disclose repeated prejudicial acts and the detaining authority could still reasonably reach subjective satisfaction that detention was necessary to prevent further harmful activity. On the facts, repeated thefts and attempted theft of overhead aluminium conductor wire had caused prolonged disruption of electricity supply, and the delay did not show absence of bona fides or subjective satisfaction. The habeas corpus challenge therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a preventive detention order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 was invalid merely because it was passed after a delay of about five months from the last incident relied upon.

Analysis: The grounds disclosed repeated acts of theft and attempted theft of overhead aluminium conductor wire, which had caused prolonged suspension of electricity supply and serious disruption to the community. The lapse of time between the incidents and the detention order, by itself, was held not sufficient to show absence of subjective satisfaction or mala fides. On the facts, the detaining authority could still be satisfied that detention was necessary to prevent further prejudicial activity.

Conclusion: The delay did not invalidate the detention order, and the challenge to the detention failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition for habeas corpus was rejected because the preventive detention order was upheld as legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere delay in passing a preventive detention order does not, by itself, invalidate the order where the detaining authority could still reasonably be satisfied on the basis of the detainee's prejudicial activities that detention was necessary.

---