https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180855 Under the National Security Act, 1980, where a representation is required to be made to the appropriate Government, consideration by that Government satisfies the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5); separate final consideration by the delegated detaining authority is not necessary. However, preventive detention requires prompt disposal of the representation. An unexplained 28-day delay across administrative levels, including the detaining authority and State Government, lacked adequate justification and infringed the safeguard against arbitrary detention. The detention order was therefore rendered unlawful and quashed. en-us Thu, 16 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Oct 2019 16:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180855 Under the National Security Act, 1980, where a representation is required to be made to the appropriate Government, consideration by that Government satisfies the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5); separate final consideration by the delegated detaining authority is not necessary. However, preventive detention requires prompt disposal of the representation. An unexplained 28-day delay across administrative levels, including the detaining authority and State Government, lacked adequate justification and infringed the safeguard against arbitrary detention. The detention order was therefore rendered unlawful and quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180855