TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the order of preventive detention was vitiated for non-application of mind because the grounds of detention were a verbatim reproduction of the sponsoring authority's proposal, and whether such non-application rendered the detention unsustainable.
Analysis: The detention record showed that the detaining authority had sought some additional documents and discussed the proposal with officers, but the final detention order and grounds were prepared almost entirely by copying the proposal, with only the word "he" replaced by "you". In preventive detention matters, the safeguards under Article 22 require real and independent application of mind not only at the stage of approval of the proposal but also when the order of detention and grounds are actually formulated. A detention order that merely reproduces the sponsoring material without independent formulation of grounds reflects a casual exercise and undermines the constitutional requirement of subjective satisfaction.
Conclusion: The detention order was vitiated by non-application of mind and was quashed; the appeal was allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, a detention order and grounds that are substantially a verbatim reproduction of the sponsoring authority's proposal, without independent application of mind by the detaining authority, are invalid for breach of Article 22 safeguards.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
