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: (i) whether a fresh Advisory Board was required to consider the detenu's subsequent representation when no fresh grounds, fresh material, or subsequent events were shown; (ii) whether, in the peculiar facts of the case and after long lapse of time, the detenu should be sent back to custody to undergo the remaining period of detention.
Issue (i): whether a fresh Advisory Board was required to consider the detenu's subsequent representation when no fresh grounds, fresh material, or subsequent events were shown.
Analysis: The representation made after the earlier challenges had failed did not disclose any new factual basis or supervening circumstance. It merely restated the grievance in different language. Where a representation does not present fresh grounds or material, the administration is not obliged to convene a fresh Advisory Board merely because a further request is made. The earlier consideration of the detention order and rejection of representations had already taken place, and the subsequent representation did not justify reopening the matter.
Conclusion: No fresh Advisory Board was required, and the rejection of the subsequent representation was valid.
Issue (ii): whether, in the peculiar facts of the case and after long lapse of time, the detenu should be sent back to custody to undergo the remaining period of detention.
Analysis: The detention had already been substantially undergone and the detenu had been on parole for a considerable period. In the peculiar circumstances, and in light of the long passage of time, sending him back to prison to serve the short remaining portion of detention would not serve the interests of justice.
Conclusion: The detenu was not required to be taken back into custody for the remaining period of detention.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the detention failed, but no further custodial incarceration was directed for the balance period of detention.
Ratio Decidendi: A fresh Advisory Board is not required when a subsequent representation discloses no new grounds, fresh material, or supervening events, and the Court may, in exceptional circumstances, decline to require completion of the remaining detention period.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
