<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1981 (7) TMI 245 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169278</link>
    <description>Under preventive detention law, a reference to the Advisory Board is a mechanical step to meet the constitutional time-limit and does not require the Government to form a tentative view on the detention period before making the reference. A detenu&#039;s representation may validly be dealt with by a Minister of State where the Rules of Business allocate that portfolio, and the fact that different authorised officers act at different stages does not invalidate the process. Denial of legal representation before the Advisory Board did not vitiate the detention, as there is no statutory right to a lawyer there; on the facts, no real prejudice or non-application of mind was shown, so the detention orders were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2015 17:50:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=381366" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (7) TMI 245 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169278</link>
      <description>Under preventive detention law, a reference to the Advisory Board is a mechanical step to meet the constitutional time-limit and does not require the Government to form a tentative view on the detention period before making the reference. A detenu&#039;s representation may validly be dealt with by a Minister of State where the Rules of Business allocate that portfolio, and the fact that different authorised officers act at different stages does not invalidate the process. Denial of legal representation before the Advisory Board did not vitiate the detention, as there is no statutory right to a lawyer there; on the facts, no real prejudice or non-application of mind was shown, so the detention orders were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169278</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>