TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 the unexplained delay of about 14 months in passing the detention order snapped the live and proximate link between the prejudicial activity and the purpose of preventive detention; (ii) Whether the unexplained delay of 17 days in disposing of the detenu's representation vitiated the detention.
Issue (i): Whether the unexplained delay of about 14 months in passing the detention order snapped the live and proximate link between the prejudicial activity and the purpose of preventive detention.
Analysis: Preventive detention must rest on a proximate nexus between the prejudicial act and the need to detain. Where the investigating process is complete and the authority offers no satisfactory explanation for prolonged inaction, the passage of time can break the live link and indicate absence of the requisite satisfaction. In the present case, the incident occurred in April 1990, the proposal was initiated only in June 1990, and the detention order was passed in June 1991 without a credible explanation for the intervening delay.
Conclusion: The unexplained delay snapped the live link, and this ground was accepted in favour of the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the unexplained delay of 17 days in disposing of the detenu's representation vitiated the detention.
Analysis: A representation against preventive detention must be considered and disposed of with promptitude. Any delay must be satisfactorily explained, because the right to make an effective representation is a constitutional safeguard. Here, the respondents failed to explain why the comments required for disposal of the representation were not obtained and processed expeditiously.
Conclusion: The unexplained delay in dealing with the representation vitiated the detention, and this ground was also accepted in favour of the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The detention order was quashed and the detenu was directed to be released if not required in any other case.
Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, unexplained delay in passing the order or in disposing of the constitutional representation can destroy the live and proximate link with the prejudicial activity and render the detention illegal.
TaxTMI 
