https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189084 Preventive detention was held illegal because the detenu's statutory right to make an effective representation was frustrated. He had been informed that he could represent to both the State Government and the Central Government, and he supplied multiple copies for transmission, but the jail authorities forwarded the representation only to the State Government. As the representation was addressed to the Home Secretary without clarifying the intended authority, the Jail Superintendent was required to ensure that a copy reached the Central Government. Failure to do so impaired the safeguard attached to preventive detention and rendered the detention liable to be quashed. en-us Mon, 30 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:40:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189084 Preventive detention was held illegal because the detenu's statutory right to make an effective representation was frustrated. He had been informed that he could represent to both the State Government and the Central Government, and he supplied multiple copies for transmission, but the jail authorities forwarded the representation only to the State Government. As the representation was addressed to the Home Secretary without clarifying the intended authority, the Jail Superintendent was required to ensure that a copy reached the Central Government. Failure to do so impaired the safeguard attached to preventive detention and rendered the detention liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 30 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189084