Preventive detention fails where retractions, unexplained delay, and non-supply of relied upon documents undermine subjective satisfaction.

Preventive detention under COFEPOSA requires the detaining authority to consider all material circumstances, including retraction of inculpatory statements and relied upon documents, and to show a proximate factual nexus justifying detention. The detention was found vitiated because the grounds did not reflect awareness of the detenus' retractions, the delay between the incident and the order was not satisfactorily explained, the declaration card was not properly placed or supplied, and there was no adequate material showing a real likelihood of future smuggling. On these grounds, the detention could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the detention order was vitiated because the detaining authority did not show awareness or consideration of the detenus' retraction of their inculpatory statements; (ii) whether the inordinate delay between the incident and the detention order had snapped the live link and undermined subjective satisfaction; (iii) whether failure to place and supply the declaration card, though relied upon, deprived the detenus of an effective opportunity to represent; and (iv) whether the impounding of passports and absence of material showing future propensity to smuggle rendered the detention unsustainable.

Issue (i): whether the detention order was vitiated because the detaining authority did not show awareness or consideration of the detenus' retraction of their inculpatory statements.

Analysis: Preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act requires the detaining authority to form a genuine subjective satisfaction on all relevant material. Where inculpatory statements are sought to be relied upon, any retraction bearing on their evidentiary value is a material circumstance and must be reflected in the grounds or otherwise shown to have been considered. On the record, the bail applications containing retractions were not shown to have been adverted to in the detention grounds, and the grounds did not reflect awareness of the retractions.

Conclusion: The detention order was vitiated on this ground and this issue is answered in favour of the detenus.

Issue (ii): whether the inordinate delay between the incident and the detention order had snapped the live link and undermined subjective satisfaction.

Analysis: In preventive detention matters, delay is not judged mechanically by counting months, but by examining whether the prejudicial activity remains proximate to the order and whether the authority has furnished a tenable explanation for the delay. Here, the detention order was passed long after the alleged incident, and the explanation offered did not furnish adequate particulars showing why the matter could not have been acted upon earlier. The delay was therefore found to be unsatisfactorily explained, breaking the causal connection between the alleged act and the preventive action.

Conclusion: The detention order was unsustainable on account of unexplained delay and the snapped live link, in favour of the detenus.

Issue (iii): whether failure to place and supply the declaration card, though relied upon, deprived the detenus of an effective opportunity to represent.

Analysis: Article 22(5) requires communication of all grounds and supply of all relied upon and relevant documents so that the detenu can make an effective representation. The declaration card was part of the factual foundation of the detention, yet it was neither shown to have been placed before the detaining authority nor satisfactorily supplied to the detenus when requested. Non-furnishing of such a relied upon document prejudices the constitutional right of representation.

Conclusion: The failure to place and supply the declaration card vitiated the detention, in favour of the detenus.

Issue (iv): whether the impounding of passports and absence of material showing future propensity to smuggle rendered the detention unsustainable.

Analysis: Preventive detention cannot rest on conjecture; there must be acceptable material showing a real likelihood of future prejudicial activity. Where passports have been impounded, the authority must still have some material to justify the inference that the person is likely to continue similar activity. In the present case, no satisfactory material was placed to support such a conclusion, and the subjective satisfaction was therefore found to be unsupported.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid on this ground as well, in favour of the detenus.

Final Conclusion: The detention orders could not survive judicial review because the foundational safeguards for preventive detention were not satisfied, and the detenus were entitled to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, the detaining authority must demonstrably consider all material circumstances, including retraction of inculpatory statements and all relied upon documents, and the detention must be supported by a proximate and satisfactorily explained factual nexus showing a real likelihood of future prejudicial conduct.

---