Preventive detention requires prompt action and full consideration of material; unexplained delay and missed reply can invalidate detention.

Preventive detention is vulnerable where there is an inordinate, unexplained delay between the alleged prejudicial activity, the sponsoring proposal, the grounds of detention and service of the order, because the delay breaks the live link required for valid detention. It is also defective where the detaining authority does not consider the full and relevant material before recording subjective satisfaction, including a vital reply to the show-cause notice, indicating non-application of mind. The note states that both defects justified quashing the detention orders and release of the detenus.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the inordinate delay in issuing and serving the detention orders, without satisfactory explanation, vitiated the preventive detention. (ii) Whether the detention orders were invalid for want of proper application of mind because the detaining authority did not consider the full and usable material, including the reply to the show-cause notice, before forming subjective satisfaction.

Issue (i): Whether the inordinate delay in issuing and serving the detention orders, without satisfactory explanation, vitiated the preventive detention.

Analysis: Preventive detention requires expedition and temporal proximity between the prejudicial activity, the sponsoring proposal, the formation of grounds, and service of the order. A long and unexplained gap breaks the live link between the alleged activity and the detention. Mere lapse of time is not by itself fatal, but where the delay is substantial and the explanation unsatisfactory, the order cannot be sustained.

Conclusion: The unexplained and inordinate delay vitiated the detention orders and operates in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the detention orders were invalid for want of proper application of mind because the detaining authority did not consider the full and usable material, including the reply to the show-cause notice, before forming subjective satisfaction.

Analysis: The detaining authority must consider the entirety of the material before arriving at subjective satisfaction. The record showed uncertainty about when complete and legible documents were received, whether they were considered together, and whether grounds were formulated piecemeal. The reply to the show-cause notice was a vital document and ought to have been placed before and considered by the detaining authority; its omission reinforced the inference of an incomplete and disjointed process and non-application of mind.

Conclusion: The detention orders were invalid for non-consideration of crucial material and failure to properly apply mind, in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: Both detention orders were quashed and set aside, and the detenus were directed to be set at liberty.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order is unsustainable if there is inordinate unexplained delay that snaps the live link with the alleged activity, or if the detaining authority fails to consider the full and relevant material before forming subjective satisfaction, including a vital reply to a show-cause notice.

---