https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192272 Preventive detention was sustained because the detenu's representation was processed without unexplained delay, so no violation of Article 22(5) was found. The detention order was also upheld as the record showed continuing prejudicial conduct, a recent last incident, and absconding, preserving the live link between the conduct and the need for detention. The challenge based on non-application of mind failed because the detaining authority stated that all relevant material was considered, and the record supported that assertion. The article notes that prompt processing, subsisting proximity to prejudicial activity, and proper application of mind are central safeguards in such matters. en-us Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 May 2017 11:06:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192272 Preventive detention was sustained because the detenu's representation was processed without unexplained delay, so no violation of Article 22(5) was found. The detention order was also upheld as the record showed continuing prejudicial conduct, a recent last incident, and absconding, preserving the live link between the conduct and the need for detention. The challenge based on non-application of mind failed because the detaining authority stated that all relevant material was considered, and the record supported that assertion. The article notes that prompt processing, subsisting proximity to prejudicial activity, and proper application of mind are central safeguards in such matters. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192272