Preventive detention requires a live nexus and full disclosure of relied-upon materials for effective representation.

In preventive detention, delay in passing or executing the order is not automatically fatal; it matters only if the grounds become stale or the live and proximate link with the prejudicial act is broken, and the delay here was held not to invalidate the detention. Non-supply of the bail application and bail order, however, was treated as a breach of Article 22(5) because those were vital relied-upon materials needed for an effective representation. The omission left the grounds incomplete and vitiated the continued detention, making the detention unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether delay in passing and executing the detention order snapped the live and proximate link between the prejudicial act and the order of preventive detention. (ii) Whether non-supply of the bail application and bail order vitiated the detention for breach of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether delay in passing and executing the detention order snapped the live and proximate link between the prejudicial act and the order of preventive detention.

Analysis: The delay in passing the order was explained by the need for investigation and consideration at different levels before the proposal was finalised. The delay in execution was also explained by the efforts made to secure service of the order and the detenu's unavailability at the relevant time. In preventive detention matters, delay is not mechanically fatal; the question is whether the grounds have become stale or the nexus has been broken.

Conclusion: The delay did not vitiate the detention order and this contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether non-supply of the bail application and bail order vitiated the detention for breach of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The bail application and bail order were vital materials because they bore directly on the detaining authority's satisfaction, including the conditions under which the detenu was to report regularly. Where documents referred to or relied on in the grounds of detention are not furnished to the detenu, the grounds are incomplete and the detenu is denied the opportunity to make an effective representation. The constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) requires disclosure of all basic facts and materials that influenced the detention decision.

Conclusion: The non-supply of the bail application and bail order violated Article 22(5) and rendered the continued detention illegal.

Final Conclusion: The detention could not be sustained because the constitutional safeguard of effective representation was breached, and the detenu was entitled to be released.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, delay does not invalidate an order unless it destroys the live and proximate link or renders the grounds stale, but failure to supply vital relied-upon documents to the detenu violates Article 22(5) and vitiates the detention.

---