https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184457 A chronological mistake in the grounds of detention did not by itself establish non-application of mind where the record showed that the detaining authority had considered the relevant material before issuing the order. By contrast, a communicated ground stated in vague terms without sufficient particulars to enable an effective representation breached the constitutional safeguard in preventive detention. Each ground must be supported by particulars adequate for a meaningful reply, subject to any valid claim of privilege. Because one ground failed that standard, the detention was treated as unlawful and release followed. en-us Thu, 16 Apr 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Jul 2016 11:05:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184457 A chronological mistake in the grounds of detention did not by itself establish non-application of mind where the record showed that the detaining authority had considered the relevant material before issuing the order. By contrast, a communicated ground stated in vague terms without sufficient particulars to enable an effective representation breached the constitutional safeguard in preventive detention. Each ground must be supported by particulars adequate for a meaningful reply, subject to any valid claim of privilege. Because one ground failed that standard, the detention was treated as unlawful and release followed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Apr 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184457