Effective representation in preventive detention requires fair chance to present rebuttal evidence before the Advisory Board.

A detenu under preventive detention was entitled to effective representation before the Advisory Board, including the right to adduce rebuttal oral and documentary evidence. Refusal to examine witnesses brought by the detenu was held to impair the Article 22(4) safeguard, because such material could influence the Board's opinion and the Government's decision on confirmation. The denial of an opportunity to prove that the seized currency was accounted for therefore vitiated continued detention, leading to quashing of the detention and immediate release.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detenu was denied a reasonable opportunity of effective representation before the Advisory Board by refusal to examine the witnesses brought by him, thereby vitiating the continued detention.

Analysis: The detention was founded on allegations of smuggling activity and was made under the preventive detention law. The detenu requested that witnesses brought by him be examined before the Advisory Board to prove that the seized currency was accounted for and to rebut the grounds of detention. The right of a detenu to adduce oral and documentary evidence in rebuttal before the Advisory Board was recognised as part of the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(4). The opinion of the Advisory Board was not binding on the appropriate Government when it favoured detention, and the detenu's material could have affected the Government's decision on confirmation. Refusal to examine the witnesses therefore impaired the detenu's opportunity to effectively represent his case.

Conclusion: The refusal to examine the detenu's witnesses violated his right of effective representation and vitiated the continued detention. The detention was quashed and release ordered forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a detenu is entitled to place rebuttal evidence before the Advisory Board, unjustified refusal to receive that evidence denies effective representation and invalidates continued preventive detention.

---