https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107958 Preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act was challenged on the ground that the detenu's representation was not forwarded and considered promptly, allegedly violating Article 22(5). The Court examined the constitutional right to make an effective representation, the preventive detention scheme, and the Central Government's power to revoke detention under section 11. It found that the representation was considered by the Central Government and, when sent to the detaining authority, was considered on the same day it was received. Mere delay in forwarding, without delay in actual consideration or denial of the right to represent, did not invalidate the detention. No unexplained inaction or breach of constitutional safeguards was shown. en-us Fri, 04 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:51:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107958 Preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act was challenged on the ground that the detenu's representation was not forwarded and considered promptly, allegedly violating Article 22(5). The Court examined the constitutional right to make an effective representation, the preventive detention scheme, and the Central Government's power to revoke detention under section 11. It found that the representation was considered by the Central Government and, when sent to the detaining authority, was considered on the same day it was received. Mere delay in forwarding, without delay in actual consideration or denial of the right to represent, did not invalidate the detention. No unexplained inaction or breach of constitutional safeguards was shown. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 04 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107958