https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175240 Article 22(5) requires a detenu's representation against preventive detention to be considered independently on its own merits by the authority competent to revoke or confirm detention. Consideration by the Advisory Board is only an additional safeguard and does not replace the Government's separate constitutional duty. The mode of addressing the representation is immaterial, and the Government cannot rely on the Board's views or proceedings instead of applying its own mind. As the Central Government had not independently considered either representation, the constitutional and statutory safeguard was not complied with, and the continued detention was liable to be quashed. en-us Thu, 06 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Nov 2015 17:28:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175240 Article 22(5) requires a detenu's representation against preventive detention to be considered independently on its own merits by the authority competent to revoke or confirm detention. Consideration by the Advisory Board is only an additional safeguard and does not replace the Government's separate constitutional duty. The mode of addressing the representation is immaterial, and the Government cannot rely on the Board's views or proceedings instead of applying its own mind. As the Central Government had not independently considered either representation, the constitutional and statutory safeguard was not complied with, and the continued detention was liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 06 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175240