https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174317 Pre-execution judicial review of a preventive detention order was held maintainable under Article 226 because the recognised grounds for interference were illustrative, not exhaustive. The Court preferred the broader later precedent over the narrower earlier line and confirmed that intervention may be available in appropriate cases before execution. It also held that a detention order can lose efficacy where it remains unexecuted for more than seven years and there is no fresh prejudicial activity, since preventive detention requires a live and proximate link with its preventive purpose. In those circumstances, execution would be futile and the order was not to be given effect to. en-us Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jan 2019 14:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174317 Pre-execution judicial review of a preventive detention order was held maintainable under Article 226 because the recognised grounds for interference were illustrative, not exhaustive. The Court preferred the broader later precedent over the narrower earlier line and confirmed that intervention may be available in appropriate cases before execution. It also held that a detention order can lose efficacy where it remains unexecuted for more than seven years and there is no fresh prejudicial activity, since preventive detention requires a live and proximate link with its preventive purpose. In those circumstances, execution would be futile and the order was not to be given effect to. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174317