https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182554 The Supreme Court held that the detenu's continued detention was liable to be quashed because the detaining authority, the Chief Secretary, did not reject the representation himself but submitted it to the Administrator who ultimately rejected it. This process did not comply with the requirements under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and the COFEPOSA. The Court noted that the Chief Secretary only considered the representation and made an endorsement for rejection, but the final decision was made by the Administrator. As a result, the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) was not strictly observed, rendering the detention illegal. The Court quashed the detention order and directed the detenu's immediate release. en-us Wed, 31 Oct 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 May 2016 11:30:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182554 The Supreme Court held that the detenu's continued detention was liable to be quashed because the detaining authority, the Chief Secretary, did not reject the representation himself but submitted it to the Administrator who ultimately rejected it. This process did not comply with the requirements under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and the COFEPOSA. The Court noted that the Chief Secretary only considered the representation and made an endorsement for rejection, but the final decision was made by the Administrator. As a result, the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) was not strictly observed, rendering the detention illegal. The Court quashed the detention order and directed the detenu's immediate release. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 31 Oct 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182554