https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282392 Delhi HC reiterated that preventive detention requires a live and proximate nexus with the prejudicial activity, and unexplained delay can stale the subjective satisfaction; on the facts, continuous investigation and ongoing steps by the authorities meant the delay in passing the detention order did not vitiate detention. The Court also accepted the explanation for delay in execution, noting reliance on the detenu's alleged absence and Section 7(1)(b) of COFEPOSA. On supply of documents, it held that Article 22(5) requires only relied upon documents to be furnished, and non-supply of a merely referred remand order caused no shown prejudice and did not invalidate the detention. en-us Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Aug 2019 13:11:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282392 Delhi HC reiterated that preventive detention requires a live and proximate nexus with the prejudicial activity, and unexplained delay can stale the subjective satisfaction; on the facts, continuous investigation and ongoing steps by the authorities meant the delay in passing the detention order did not vitiate detention. The Court also accepted the explanation for delay in execution, noting reliance on the detenu's alleged absence and Section 7(1)(b) of COFEPOSA. On supply of documents, it held that Article 22(5) requires only relied upon documents to be furnished, and non-supply of a merely referred remand order caused no shown prejudice and did not invalidate the detention. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282392