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: Whether a detenu under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act was required to be informed of the distinct right to make representations both to the Government and before the Advisory Board, and whether communication stating an option to represent to either authority satisfied the statutory and constitutional safeguard.
Analysis: Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 7(2) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act require that the detenu be afforded an earliest and meaningful opportunity to make a representation. The statutory wording uses the expression that the detenu shall be informed in writing of the right to represent to the Government and before the Advisory Board. The right to have the representation considered by the Government is distinct from the Advisory Board's consideration, and the Board's opinion is only an additional safeguard. Information conveyed to the detenu must therefore be correct, specific, and beyond ambiguity. A communication stating that the detenu may represent to either the Government or the Advisory Board incorrectly dilutes the statutory safeguard and may mislead the detenu into believing that the rights are alternative rather than cumulative.
Conclusion: The detenu had a distinct right to be informed of representations to both authorities, and the communication using an alternative formulation was invalid. The continued detention was held illegal and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
