Preventive detention requires a live link to past conduct; unexplained delay can invalidate the detention order.

Preventive detention based on past conduct requires a proximate and rational connection between the alleged prejudicial activity and the detention order. Where there is a substantial time gap, the detaining authority must explain the delay to preserve the live link between the conduct and the need for detention. An unexplained delay of about nine months after the alleged incident was held fatal because the State offered no cogent justification despite being given an opportunity. The detention order was therefore invalid for lack of proximity and unexplained delay.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated by inordinate and unexplained delay, resulting in a lack of proximate connection between the alleged prejudicial activity and the order of detention.

Analysis: Preventive detention may validly rest on past conduct or antecedent history only when that conduct has a proximate relation to the preventive satisfaction and a rational connection with the need for detention. Where the time lag between the incident relied upon and the detention order is ex facie long, the detaining authority must explain the delay so as to preserve the live link between the conduct and the detention. In the present case, the delay of about nine months between the alleged incident and the detention order remained unexplained despite an opportunity being afforded to the State. The absence of any cogent explanation made the detention unsustainable.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid for unexplained delay and lack of proximity, and the petition was allowed.

---