Preventive detention fails when unexplained delay breaks the live nexus and relevant defence material is withheld from the detaining authority.

Preventive detention is unsustainable where an inordinate unexplained delay breaks the live nexus between the alleged prejudicial activity and the need for detention. The detention order was also vitiated because the detenu's reply to the show cause notice, being relevant to the grounds relied on, was not placed before the detaining authority. The omission deprived the authority of material needed for informed subjective satisfaction. On both grounds, the detention could not be sustained and immediate release followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the preventive detention order was vitiated by unexplained delay between the incident and the passing of the order; (ii) Whether non-placement of the detenu's reply to the show cause notice before the detaining authority vitiated the detention.

Issue (i): Whether the preventive detention order was vitiated by unexplained delay between the incident and the passing of the order.

Analysis: The detention was founded on an incident that had occurred much earlier, and the record disclosed no satisfactory explanation for the long interval before the detention order was made. Preventive detention is justified only when the alleged prejudicial activity has a proximate bearing on the need to prevent future conduct, and an inordinate unexplained delay breaks that nexus.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid on the ground of unexplained delay, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether non-placement of the detenu's reply to the show cause notice before the detaining authority vitiated the detention.

Analysis: The grounds of detention referred to the show cause notice issued in the adjudication proceedings. Once that material was considered relevant, the reply submitted in answer to it could not be treated as irrelevant. Failure to place such a relevant document before the detaining authority deprived it of material necessary for forming an informed subjective satisfaction.

Conclusion: The detention order was also vitiated by failure to place the reply before the detaining authority, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The detention order could not be sustained as it was invalid on both examined grounds, and the detenu was entitled to immediate release.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order is unsustainable where there is an unexplained and inordinate delay destroying the live nexus with the alleged prejudicial activity, or where a relevant reply or document is withheld from the detaining authority while forming subjective satisfaction.

---