https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192279 In preventive detention, the first paragraph of the grounds was treated as a mere introductory preamble, not an independent ground, so it could not be challenged separately for vagueness. The Court held that the remaining grounds supplied sufficient basic facts to permit an effective representation under Article 22(5); minute evidentiary details were not required and the detention was not vitiated on vagueness. It further held that the alleged conduct, viewed in the context of the wider agitation, had enough reach and impact to affect the even tempo of community life and therefore fell within public order rather than a mere law and order problem. The detention order was upheld. en-us Mon, 16 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 May 2017 14:38:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192279 In preventive detention, the first paragraph of the grounds was treated as a mere introductory preamble, not an independent ground, so it could not be challenged separately for vagueness. The Court held that the remaining grounds supplied sufficient basic facts to permit an effective representation under Article 22(5); minute evidentiary details were not required and the detention was not vitiated on vagueness. It further held that the alleged conduct, viewed in the context of the wider agitation, had enough reach and impact to affect the even tempo of community life and therefore fell within public order rather than a mere law and order problem. The detention order was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 16 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192279