Preventive detention fails when unexplained delay and non-supply of relied-upon documents destroy the live link and representation rights.

Preventive detention is vitiated where there is an unexplained gap between the alleged prejudicial act and the detention order, because the required live and proximate link between the activity and detention is broken. Non-supply of documents expressly relied upon in the grounds of detention, including the anticipatory bail material, the signed blank sheet and the visiting card, also denies the detenu an effective opportunity to make a representation. On these principles, the continued detention was found unjustified and release was directed in the absence of any other legal restraint.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention order was vitiated by undue delay between the alleged smuggling incident and the passing of the detention order; (ii) Whether the detenu was denied an effective opportunity to make a representation because documents relied upon in the grounds of detention were not supplied.

Issue (i): Whether the detention order was vitiated by undue delay between the alleged smuggling incident and the passing of the detention order.

Analysis: The detention order was passed several months after the alleged incident, and the delay was not satisfactorily explained. In preventive detention matters, the existence of proximity and continuity between the prejudicial activity and the detention is material, and an unexplained lapse may indicate absence of the required live and proximate link.

Conclusion: The delay was unjustified and the detention order was vitiated on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the detenu was denied an effective opportunity to make a representation because documents relied upon in the grounds of detention were not supplied.

Analysis: The grounds of detention showed reliance on the anticipatory bail application and order relating to Parminder Singh, as well as the blank sheet of paper said to bear the detenu's signature and the visiting card. These materials were relied upon in forming the detention satisfaction, and their non-supply impaired the detenu's constitutional and statutory right to make an effective representation.

Conclusion: The non-supply of the relied upon documents deprived the detenu of an effective representation and vitiated the detention.

Final Conclusion: The continued detention was held unjustified and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith in the absence of any other legal restraint.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, unexplained delay and failure to supply documents relied upon in the grounds of detention vitiate the detention because they destroy the live link between the prejudicial act and detention and deny an effective right of representation.

---