https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157406 Article 22(5) requires the detenu to be told all material particulars relied on for detention so an effective representation can be made; withholding relevant adverse material that influenced the detaining authority vitiates the detention order and breaches the constitutional safeguard. Preventive detention remains distinct from punitive prosecution, so the failure of criminal cases does not by itself establish mala fides, and the challenge based only on that ground was rejected. The attack on the continuance of the emergency and on the constitutional validity of the preventive detention scheme also failed, as the provisions were read in harmony with Article 22(5) rather than struck down. en-us Fri, 08 Feb 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Aug 2014 12:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157406 Article 22(5) requires the detenu to be told all material particulars relied on for detention so an effective representation can be made; withholding relevant adverse material that influenced the detaining authority vitiates the detention order and breaches the constitutional safeguard. Preventive detention remains distinct from punitive prosecution, so the failure of criminal cases does not by itself establish mala fides, and the challenge based only on that ground was rejected. The attack on the continuance of the emergency and on the constitutional validity of the preventive detention scheme also failed, as the provisions were read in harmony with Article 22(5) rather than struck down. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 Feb 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157406