Preventive detention and unexplained delay can vitiate subjective satisfaction and break the live link to the alleged act.

An unexplained and inordinate delay in issuing a preventive detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act can undermine the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction and break the live link between the alleged prejudicial act and detention. Here, the order was made about six months after the alleged activity, and the explanation for the delay was not supported by the record, which showed the person had been appearing before the authorities earlier. The detention was therefore treated as unsustainable, with parity against a similarly placed co-accused also noted as a supporting factor.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act was liable to be quashed for unexplained delay in passing it.

Analysis: The detention order was passed about six months after the alleged prejudicial activity. The explanation offered for the delay was that the petitioner's statement was being recorded till July 1992, but the record showed that he had been appearing before the authorities since April 1992 and no satisfactory explanation was furnished for the prolonged interval. The delay created a serious doubt about the genuineness of the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction and broke the live link between the alleged activity and the detention order. The order was also found vulnerable on the ground of parity, as a co-accused on similar grounds had already been granted relief.

Conclusion: The detention order was quashed because the unexplained delay rendered the preventive detention unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: An unexplained and inordinate delay in passing a preventive detention order can vitiate the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction and break the live nexus between the alleged prejudicial act and the detention.

---