https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182559 Preventive detention scrutiny turned on whether the detenu's representation was considered with reasonable promptitude under Article 22(5), whether custody at the time of detention showed non-application of mind, and whether the Section 9(1) declaration was vitiated by omission of later materials. The delay in processing the representation was held not unreasonable because the initial interval was due to postal transmission and the remaining time was explained by holidays and preparation of comments. The detention order was upheld because the authority had considered the likelihood of bail and future prejudicial activity. The declaration also survived, as the later bail order and alleged confession retraction were not shown to be vital material requiring placement before the authority. en-us Wed, 27 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jan 2019 10:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182559 Preventive detention scrutiny turned on whether the detenu's representation was considered with reasonable promptitude under Article 22(5), whether custody at the time of detention showed non-application of mind, and whether the Section 9(1) declaration was vitiated by omission of later materials. The delay in processing the representation was held not unreasonable because the initial interval was due to postal transmission and the remaining time was explained by holidays and preparation of comments. The detention order was upheld because the authority had considered the likelihood of bail and future prejudicial activity. The declaration also survived, as the later bail order and alleged confession retraction were not shown to be vital material requiring placement before the authority. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 27 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182559