Preventive detention delay without fresh material breaks the live nexus and invalidates the detention order.

An inordinate and unexplained delay in issuing a preventive detention order can vitiate the order where no fresh material shows continuing prejudicial activity. Here, the detention order was made months after the incident and after release on bail, but the detaining authority relied on substantially the same material available earlier and identified no intervening conduct to maintain the live nexus required for preventive detention. On that basis, the order was treated as mechanical and lacking proper application of mind, and was liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether unexplained delay in passing the preventive detention order, in the absence of fresh material showing continuing prejudicial activity, vitiated the order for want of nexus and non-application of mind.

Analysis: The detention order was passed about five months after the incident and about three months after the detenu was released on bail. The material before the detaining authority was substantially the same as that available immediately after the incident, and no additional circumstances were shown to justify the belated order. The delay was not adequately explained, and the record did not disclose any intervening prejudicial activity that could sustain the live nexus required for preventive detention. In these circumstances, the order was treated as having been made mechanically and without proper application of mind.

Conclusion: The unexplained delay vitiated the detention order, which was liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: An inordinate and unexplained delay in passing a preventive detention order, without fresh material showing a continuing necessity to prevent prejudicial activity, snaps the live nexus and invalidates the detention order.

---