Preventive detention remains valid despite a five-month gap where authority's satisfaction is not arbitrary or colourable.

Preventive detention depends on the detaining authority's satisfaction, formed on relevant material, that detention is necessary to prevent prejudicial conduct. Mere lapse of time between the incidents and the detention order does not by itself invalidate the order; it matters only if the delay is so great that no reasonable authority could have reached that satisfaction, or if the satisfaction is shown to be colourable. As the incidents were about five months old and the petitioner failed to show that the satisfaction was impossible, arbitrary, or colourable, the detention order was upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was invalid on the ground that the incidents relied upon were about five months old and therefore could not reasonably support the detaining authority's satisfaction.

Analysis: The validity of a preventive detention order depends upon the detaining authority reaching the requisite satisfaction on the basis of relevant material that detention is necessary to prevent prejudicial conduct. Mere lapse of time between the incidents and the order does not by itself vitiate that satisfaction unless the delay is so great that no reasonable authority could have formed the opinion or the satisfaction is shown to be colourable. Here, the grounds related to incidents in October 1971, while the order was made in April 1972. The interval was not so excessive as to destroy the basis of satisfaction, particularly since investigation and consideration of the material would necessarily take time. The petitioner failed to show that the satisfaction was impossible, arbitrary, or merely colourable.

Conclusion: The detention order was held valid and the challenge to detention failed.

---