Preventive detention requires a live-link and disclosed material; unexplained delay and unsupported facts can vitiate detention.

Preventive detention requires a proximate and disclosed factual basis for subjective satisfaction. An unexplained gap between the prejudicial incident and the detention order can break the live-link and render the preventive nexus stale, making detention invalid. Reliance on an unsupported factual assertion, such as an unsubstantiated claim that the detenu was a frequent visitor to Dubai, also vitiates the order because the detaining authority must act only on material actually before it. The commentary states that the detention order was struck down on both grounds: unexplained delay and reliance on unsupported material.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention order was vitiated by unexplained delay between the prejudicial incident and the detention order, breaking the live-link between the incident and the apprehension of future prejudicial activity. (ii) Whether the detention order was vitiated because the detaining authority relied on an unsubstantiated assertion that the detenu was a frequent visitor to Dubai.

Issue (i): Whether the detention order was vitiated by unexplained delay between the prejudicial incident and the detention order, breaking the live-link between the incident and the apprehension of future prejudicial activity.

Analysis: Preventive detention requires a proximate connection between the prejudicial act and the need for detention. Where the authority does not satisfactorily explain a substantial gap in time, the inference that detention is necessary for preventing future prejudicial conduct becomes stale. On the material placed, the delay remained unexplained and the nexus between the incident and the preventive action was not maintained.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid on account of unexplained delay and failure of live-link, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the detention order was vitiated because the detaining authority relied on an unsubstantiated assertion that the detenu was a frequent visitor to Dubai.

Analysis: The detaining authority must base its subjective satisfaction only on material that is actually placed before it. A factual assertion used to support detention, if unsupported by the record and not disclosed to the detenu, cannot legitimately form part of the basis of detention. The record did not show any material to support the assertion that the detenu was a frequent visitor to Dubai.

Conclusion: The detention order was vitiated by reliance on unsupported material, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention order was struck down because the preventive nexus had become too remote and the authority had relied on unsupported facts while forming its satisfaction.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order must rest on proximate and disclosed material; unexplained delay may break the live-link, and reliance on unsupported facts vitiates subjective satisfaction.

---