Unexplained delay between arrest and preventive detention snaps the live and proximate link, invalidating detention.

The petitioner, the mother of Ezhil @ Ezhilan, challenged his preventive detention as a “Dangerous Person” under Section 3(1) of the Puducherry Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2008.

The detenu was arrested in the ground case on 31 May 2026, and the detention order was passed on 1 July 2026.

The petitioner argued that the interval was unexplained and had severed the live and proximate link necessary to justify detention; the respondents contended that delay alone did not warrant quashing the order and that no prejudice had been caused.

Whether the unexplained interval between the detenu’s arrest on 31 May 2026 and the detention order dated 1 July 2026 snapped the live and proximate link and invalidated the detention order.

Whether the detention order should consequently be set aside and the detenu released, subject to any other lawful detention.

Section 3(1) of the Puducherry Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2008 (Act No. 10 of 2010), was the statutory basis for the detention order.

Relying on Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1333, the Court applied the principle that an unreasonable delay between relevant events—including the proposal and the detention order, or the detention order and the detenu’s arrest—may, unless satisfactorily explained, cast doubt on the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction and snap the live and proximate link between the grounds and purpose of detention.

Whether a delay is unreasonable and unexplained depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The detenu had been arrested on 31 May 2026, but the detention order was not passed until 1 July 2026.

The Court found the resulting delay in passing the order to be inordinate and unexplained.

Applying the live-and-proximate-link principle, it held that the link between the arrest and the need for preventive detention had snapped, vitiating the order.

The respondents’ contention that delay alone was insufficient did not overcome the absence of an explanation for the delay in this case.

It directed that Ezhil @ Ezhilan be released forthwith, unless his detention was required in connection with another case.