Preventive detention requires a live link; unexplained delay between incident and order snaps the nexus and invalidates detention.

Preventive detention requires a proximate and live nexus between the alleged prejudicial activity and the detention order. Where there is an inordinate delay, the detaining authority must satisfactorily explain the interval; otherwise the apprehension of future prejudicial conduct loses its basis. Here, the alleged incident occurred on 01.06.2007, but the detention order was passed only on 19.08.2008, and the record showed no explanation for the delay or material indicating continuing prejudicial activity in the meantime. The detention order was therefore vitiated by unexplained delay and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated by unexplained delay between the alleged prejudicial activity and the passing of the detention order.

Analysis: Preventive detention requires a proximate and live connection between the prejudicial activity relied upon and the necessity to detain. Where there is a long gap between the incident and the detention order, the delay must be satisfactorily explained; otherwise the nexus between the incident and the apprehension of future prejudicial conduct stands snapped. In the present case, the ground incident occurred on 01.06.2007, while the detention order was passed only on 19.08.2008. The material before the detaining authority disclosed no explanation for the long interval, and no material showed continuing prejudicial activity in the interregnum.

Conclusion: The detention order was vitiated by unexplained delay and was liable to be quashed; the petitioner succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, an unexplained and inordinate delay between the alleged prejudicial act and the detention order snaps the live link and invalidates the detention order for want of nexus.

---