https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171287 Preventive detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was analysed as a deprivation of personal liberty, not a direct restriction on free speech, so Article 19(1)(a) was not treated as the governing test. The grounds of detention were found sufficiently definite for Article 22(5) because they disclosed the dates, places, and general nature of the speeches, enabling an effective representation. The absence of a stated detention period did not invalidate the orders where the Act fixed the maximum duration, and the allegation of mala fides failed for lack of proof. The commentary notes that the majority upheld the detention orders, while separate opinions would have required fuller particulars. en-us Fri, 06 Apr 1951 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 May 2017 16:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171287 Preventive detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was analysed as a deprivation of personal liberty, not a direct restriction on free speech, so Article 19(1)(a) was not treated as the governing test. The grounds of detention were found sufficiently definite for Article 22(5) because they disclosed the dates, places, and general nature of the speeches, enabling an effective representation. The absence of a stated detention period did not invalidate the orders where the Act fixed the maximum duration, and the allegation of mala fides failed for lack of proof. The commentary notes that the majority upheld the detention orders, while separate opinions would have required fuller particulars. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 06 Apr 1951 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171287