High Court jurisdiction to review preventive detention orders pre-execution exists but is constrained by judicial self-restraint; interference is limited to errors such as wrong statute, wrong person, wrong purpose, vagueness, extraneous grounds, or lack of authority, and normally not available where the proposed detenue has absconded. The court applied precedent distinguishing limited pre-execution review from challenges that would permit an absconder to benefit from evasion, noted the petitioner was a proclaimed offender subject to lookout measures and prosecution steps and had not surrendered, and consequently declined to exercise Article 226 jurisdiction pre-execution while preserving the petitioner's right to challenge the order after surrender under due process safeguards.
High Court jurisdiction to review preventive detention orders pre-execution exists but is constrained by judicial self-restraint; interference is limited to errors such as wrong statute, wrong person, wrong purpose, vagueness, extraneous grounds, or lack of authority, and normally not available where the proposed detenue has absconded. The court applied precedent distinguishing limited pre-execution review from challenges that would permit an absconder to benefit from evasion, noted the petitioner was a proclaimed offender subject to lookout measures and prosecution steps and had not surrendered, and consequently declined to exercise Article 226 jurisdiction pre-execution while preserving the petitioner's right to challenge the order after surrender under due process safeguards.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
