<?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>2011 (9) TMI 993 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175324</link>
    <description>Preventive detention under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act was upheld where the detaining authority relied on a long criminal history showing habitual involvement in offences affecting public order and formed subjective satisfaction that ordinary criminal law was insufficient. The challenge based on delay in considering the detenu&#039;s representation also failed, because there is no constitutional requirement that such representation be decided before confirmation of the detention order. The detention order was therefore valid and the preventive detention challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2015 22:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=405588" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 993 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175324</link>
      <description>Preventive detention under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act was upheld where the detaining authority relied on a long criminal history showing habitual involvement in offences affecting public order and formed subjective satisfaction that ordinary criminal law was insufficient. The challenge based on delay in considering the detenu&#039;s representation also failed, because there is no constitutional requirement that such representation be decided before confirmation of the detention order. The detention order was therefore valid and the preventive detention challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175324</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>