Detenu's request for legal representation must be considered on merits, not rejected by blanket prohibition before Advisory Board

A detenu's request for legal representation before an Advisory Board, though not an absolute right, must be considered on its merits and cannot be rejected under a blanket policy or established practice. The governing provision did not impose a total bar on legal assistance, and the Board was required to decide the request fairly and individually. Refusal based solely on a general practice, without case-specific consideration, was arbitrary and impaired the detenu's ability to make an effective representation, rendering the continued detention illegal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detenu was denied a fair and effective opportunity to represent his case before the Advisory Board by an arbitrary refusal of legal representation.

Analysis: The governing provision disentitled the detenu from claiming, as of right, representation by a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board, but it did not impose a total bar on such representation nor prevent the Board from considering a request on its merits. The controlling principles recognised that a request for legal assistance could be made and had to be decided fairly, and that denial could not rest merely on a blanket practice or on the premise that the detenu had no enforceable right. On the facts, the request was rejected because the Board never permitted legal practitioners and not after any individualised consideration of the detenu's case. That approach introduced arbitrariness and impaired the detenu's ability to make an adequate representation.

Conclusion: The refusal to consider the request on merits was unlawful, and the detenu's continued detention became illegal.

Ratio Decidendi: A request by a detenu for legal representation before an Advisory Board, though not a matter of absolute right, must be considered on its own merits and cannot be rejected by applying a blanket prohibition or established practice.

---