Preventive detention under COFEPOSA fails where execution delay is unexplained and the live nexus is not established.

Preventive detention under COFEPOSA requires a live and proximate nexus between the prejudicial activity and the need for immediate detention, and delay in making or executing the order must be satisfactorily explained. The delay in passing the detention order was explained, but the delay in execution was not; the record showed only limited and incomplete efforts over a substantial period, and the claim that the detenu had absconded lacked adequate support. Temporary COVID-19 flight restrictions did not, by themselves, break the nexus, because resumed or selective operations remained possible. The detention order was therefore unsustainable because the unexplained execution delay and the material on record did not justify preventive detention.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order under the COFEPOSA Act was liable to be quashed on the ground of unexplained delay in passing and executing the order, and whether the intervening COVID-19 restrictions had snapped the live and proximate link between the prejudicial activity and the need for preventive detention.

Analysis: The detention order was founded on material showing involvement in organised smuggling activity, but preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act requires a real and proximate connection between the past conduct and the necessity for immediate detention. Delay in making or executing such an order does not by itself invalidate it, but the delay must be satisfactorily and reasonably explained. Applying that principle, the Court found that while the delay in passing the order was explained, the delay in execution was not. The record showed only limited and incomplete efforts for a substantial period, and the explanation that the detenu had absconded was not supported by adequate material. The Court also held that temporary restrictions on international flights during the pandemic did not eliminate the possibility of resumed or selected operations and therefore did not, by themselves, break the nexus required for preventive detention.

Conclusion: The detention order was unsustainable because the delay in execution remained unexplained and the preventive detention requirement was not justified on the material placed.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters under COFEPOSA, an order will be invalidated where the delay in execution is not satisfactorily explained and the material does not establish a continuing live and proximate link between the prejudicial activity and the need for detention.

---