https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182627 Preventive detention under Article 22(5) was not vitiated because the detenu's representation was considered by the competent authority under the rules of business, namely the Home Minister acting for the State Government. The alleged prior retraction of the confessional statement did not invalidate the order, as the retraction was not before the detaining authority when the detention was made and its absence from the Advisory Board record did not undermine the reference. Continued detention was also not terminated on humanitarian grounds, because later reliable psychiatric examination found no unsoundness of mind. The detention was therefore upheld. en-us Fri, 17 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 May 2016 12:16:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182627 Preventive detention under Article 22(5) was not vitiated because the detenu's representation was considered by the competent authority under the rules of business, namely the Home Minister acting for the State Government. The alleged prior retraction of the confessional statement did not invalidate the order, as the retraction was not before the detaining authority when the detention was made and its absence from the Advisory Board record did not undermine the reference. Continued detention was also not terminated on humanitarian grounds, because later reliable psychiatric examination found no unsoundness of mind. The detention was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 17 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182627