Procedural fairness in preventive detention requires comparable assistance for the detenu when the State is heard through senior officials.

The Supreme Court stated that, although the statutory scheme excluded representation by a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board, Article 22 required a fair and even-handed procedure. The detenu had no absolute right to lawyer representation, but where the State was heard on the merits through senior police and administrative officials, denial of comparable assistance to the detenu was impermissible. In that setting, equality and procedural fairness required at least the help of a friend so the hearing did not become one-sided. The denial of effective assistance therefore vitiated the detention, and the detention order was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was liable to be quashed because the detenu was denied assistance of a friend or legal representation before the Advisory Board while senior police and administrative were heard for the State.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Act permits reference to the Advisory Board, requires the Board to consider the materials and hear the detenu if necessary, and expressly excludes representation by a legal practitioner. The constitutional safeguards under Article 22 require a fair procedure, and the Board must act in a manner that is just and even-handed. While the detenu has no absolute right to be represented by a lawyer, the denial of similar assistance becomes impermissible where the State effectively appears through senior officials who assist on the merits. In such a situation, equality and procedural fairness require that the detenu be allowed comparable assistance, at least by a friend, so that the proceeding does not become one-sided in appearance or substance.

Conclusion: The denial of effective assistance to the detenu, despite the State being heard through high-ranking officials, vitiated the detention. The detention order was rightly quashed.

---