https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73664 A writ petition challenging preventive detention was maintainable before the Delhi High Court because an earlier Kerala dismissal had been in limine without adjudicating the detention order, and the representation on continued detention had been decided in Delhi. The detention order was held unsustainable because the detenu, who understood only Malayalam, was supplied relied upon documents only in English, preventing an effective representation under Article 22(5). Strict compliance with the constitutional safeguard was required, and the mechanical rejection of the representation did not cure the defect. The detention order was quashed and release directed unless wanted in another case. en-us Tue, 12 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73664 A writ petition challenging preventive detention was maintainable before the Delhi High Court because an earlier Kerala dismissal had been in limine without adjudicating the detention order, and the representation on continued detention had been decided in Delhi. The detention order was held unsustainable because the detenu, who understood only Malayalam, was supplied relied upon documents only in English, preventing an effective representation under Article 22(5). Strict compliance with the constitutional safeguard was required, and the mechanical rejection of the representation did not cure the defect. The detention order was quashed and release directed unless wanted in another case. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 12 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73664