https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81069 Article 22(5) requires the detaining authority to independently consider and decide a detenu's representation; that constitutional duty is not displaced by the Advisory Board's separate consideration. The manner in which the representation is addressed is only a matter of form, so a representation addressed to the Advisory Board, the Government, or both still triggers the Government's independent obligation. Because the Central Government did not separately consider the representation, the detention was held to breach Article 22(5), and the detention and confirmation orders were quashed. en-us Fri, 15 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81069 Article 22(5) requires the detaining authority to independently consider and decide a detenu's representation; that constitutional duty is not displaced by the Advisory Board's separate consideration. The manner in which the representation is addressed is only a matter of form, so a representation addressed to the Advisory Board, the Government, or both still triggers the Government's independent obligation. Because the Central Government did not separately consider the representation, the detention was held to breach Article 22(5), and the detention and confirmation orders were quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 15 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81069