https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156421 Pre-execution judicial review of preventive detention orders under Articles 226 and 32 is confined to exceptional grounds such as absence of authority, wrong person, wrong purpose, vagueness, extraneous considerations, or lack of jurisdiction. Mere lapse of time or delay in execution does not, by itself, render a detention order infructuous, especially where the detenu has avoided service or surrender. The proper course is ordinarily to require surrender and then examine any challenge on merits in accordance with Article 22(5). On this basis, interference with the detention order at the pre-execution stage was held unjustified and the High Court's restraint on enforcement was unsustainable. en-us Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Sep 2013 15:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156421 Pre-execution judicial review of preventive detention orders under Articles 226 and 32 is confined to exceptional grounds such as absence of authority, wrong person, wrong purpose, vagueness, extraneous considerations, or lack of jurisdiction. Mere lapse of time or delay in execution does not, by itself, render a detention order infructuous, especially where the detenu has avoided service or surrender. The proper course is ordinarily to require surrender and then examine any challenge on merits in accordance with Article 22(5). On this basis, interference with the detention order at the pre-execution stage was held unjustified and the High Court's restraint on enforcement was unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156421