Preventive detention requires live and proximate grounds; stale incidents and custody did not justify the detention order.

Preventive detention must rest on relevant and proximate material showing a present necessity to detain; stale incidents that are nine to fourteen years old do not provide the live and proximate link required for lawful subjective satisfaction. The Court also held that the detenu's custody did not justify detention where the authority relied on very old incidents instead of immediate and relevant material showing a future threat to public order. Reliance on remote past conduct was therefore extraneous to the statutory purpose and rendered the detention order unsustainable. The preventive detention order, and the High Court judgment upholding it, were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention order was vitiated because it was founded on stale incidents lacking a live and proximate link with the need for preventive detention. (ii) Whether the detention order could be sustained when the detenu was already in custody and the authority relied on very old incidents to justify preventive detention.

Issue (i): Whether the detention order was vitiated because it was founded on stale incidents lacking a live and proximate link with the need for preventive detention.

Analysis: The power of preventive detention under the Act can be exercised only to prevent future conduct prejudicial to public order, and the past conduct relied upon must be sufficiently proximate to support a reasonable prognosis of imminent prejudicial activity. Incidents occurring nine to fourteen years earlier were held to be too remote and stale to furnish the requisite subjective satisfaction. The Court held that such stale material breaks the live and proximate link between past conduct and the necessity to detain, and cannot form a lawful basis for preventive detention.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid on account of stale grounds and absence of a live and proximate link.

Issue (ii): Whether the detention order could be sustained when the detenu was already in custody and the authority relied on very old incidents to justify preventive detention.

Analysis: Preventive detention is not punitive and cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal process. Where the detenu was already in custody, the authority still had to rely on relevant and proximate material showing the necessity of detention in the immediate future. The Court found that the reliance on aged incidents, including one occurring in 2002-2003, was extraneous to the statutory purpose and rendered the satisfaction unreasonable. The detention order was therefore also unsustainable on this ground.

Conclusion: The detention order could not be sustained despite the detenu's custody.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the preventive detention order, along with the High Court's judgment upholding it, was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention must rest on relevant and proximate material showing a present necessity to detain, and reliance on stale incidents that break the live nexus between past conduct and anticipated future prejudice vitiates the detention order.

---