https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169391 In preventive detention matters, a detenu's representation must be considered with promptitude and watchful care because delay defeats the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5). An unexplained and inordinate delay of about 22 days in forwarding the representation, with no satisfactory explanation from the jail and prison authorities, was treated as gross negligence that rendered the safeguard ineffective and vitiated the detention. The detention order was therefore liable to be quashed. en-us Wed, 03 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Apr 2015 10:04:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169391 In preventive detention matters, a detenu's representation must be considered with promptitude and watchful care because delay defeats the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5). An unexplained and inordinate delay of about 22 days in forwarding the representation, with no satisfactory explanation from the jail and prison authorities, was treated as gross negligence that rendered the safeguard ineffective and vitiated the detention. The detention order was therefore liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 03 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169391