Preventive detention safeguards require objective consideration of a detenu's request for legal representation before the Advisory Board.

A detenu has no enforceable right to appear through a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board under Article 22(3)(b) and Section 8(e) of the COFEPOSA Act, but any request for legal representation must still be considered objectively and on its merits. A refusal based on vague or formulaic reasons, such as a bare reference to "obvious reasons," is not a proper application of mind and is inconsistent with the safeguards recognised in prior decisions. In preventive detention matters, the Board must deal with such requests dispassionately; failure to do so can vitiate the detention process.

---

---

Issues: Whether a detenu's request to be represented by a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board had to be considered on its merits, and whether rejection of that request on vague or erroneous grounds vitiated the detention proceedings.

Analysis: Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution and Section 8(e) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 do not confer a right on the detenu to appear through a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board. At the same time, the detenu is entitled to make such a request, and the Board is bound to consider it dispassionately and with due application of mind. A rejection resting on the broad statement that the request cannot be considered for "obvious reasons" does not amount to proper consideration and is inconsistent with the safeguards recognised in earlier binding decisions.

Conclusion: The detenu's request was not duly considered on merits, and the High Court was right in quashing the detention order. The appeal was liable to fail.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms that, in preventive detention matters, a request for legal representation before the Advisory Board must be examined objectively even though there is no enforceable right to such representation.

Ratio Decidendi: A detenu may request legal assistance before the Advisory Board despite lacking a right to be represented by counsel, and the Board must decide that request on merits with proper application of mind.

---