Just a moment...
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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether preventive detention was vitiated because the detenu addressed his representation only to the Advisory Board and the appropriate Government did not receive or consider that representation before confirming detention.
Analysis: Article 22(5) protects the detenu's right to make a representation and requires consideration of such representation by the appropriate Government. However, the obligation to consider arises when the Government is aware of the representation or receives it in the course of the statutory process. The Act does not cast a duty on the Advisory Board to transmit every representation made before it to the Government, and the Government is not required to make inquiries to discover whether the detenu has made a representation somewhere else. The Advisory Board's function is advisory, and confirmation of detention depends on the Government's consideration of the Board's report and the materials before it. On the facts, the detenu was informed of his right to represent to the Government, yet he chose to address the representation only to the Advisory Board without requesting transmission to the Government.
Conclusion: The detention was not invalidated on the ground of non-consideration of the representation, and the challenge failed.