https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166472 Article 22(5) requires not only prompt communication of detention grounds but also that the detenu's representation be considered independently and at the earliest stage by the detaining authority before confirmation of detention. That obligation cannot be deferred until after the Advisory Board's opinion, because the Board is an additional safeguard and not a substitute for the Government's own decision on the representation. Where the record showed that the representation was sent to the Advisory Board and detention was confirmed on its report, with no material showing prior consideration by the detaining authority, the later rejection of the representation did not cure the defect. The detention was therefore held illegal and void for violation of Article 22(5). en-us Fri, 04 May 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Oct 2014 13:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166472 Article 22(5) requires not only prompt communication of detention grounds but also that the detenu's representation be considered independently and at the earliest stage by the detaining authority before confirmation of detention. That obligation cannot be deferred until after the Advisory Board's opinion, because the Board is an additional safeguard and not a substitute for the Government's own decision on the representation. Where the record showed that the representation was sent to the Advisory Board and detention was confirmed on its report, with no material showing prior consideration by the detaining authority, the later rejection of the representation did not cure the defect. The detention was therefore held illegal and void for violation of Article 22(5). Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 04 May 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166472