<?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>1996 (10) TMI 476 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171691</link>
    <description>Under the preventive detention law, the detaining authority must communicate the grounds of detention as soon as may be, ordinarily within five days and, for exceptional circumstances recorded in writing, within ten days. Article 22(5) is satisfied if the detenu receives the grounds and supporting material in time to make an effective representation. The Court held that the statute did not require the exceptional circumstances or recorded reasons for delay to be separately communicated with the grounds, and their validity could be examined by the Government, Advisory Board, or Court. On the facts, the recorded administrative difficulties justified communication within the outer limit, so the detention orders were not vitiated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:10:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=391654" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 476 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171691</link>
      <description>Under the preventive detention law, the detaining authority must communicate the grounds of detention as soon as may be, ordinarily within five days and, for exceptional circumstances recorded in writing, within ten days. Article 22(5) is satisfied if the detenu receives the grounds and supporting material in time to make an effective representation. The Court held that the statute did not require the exceptional circumstances or recorded reasons for delay to be separately communicated with the grounds, and their validity could be examined by the Government, Advisory Board, or Court. On the facts, the recorded administrative difficulties justified communication within the outer limit, so the detention orders were not vitiated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171691</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>