https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196603 Detention made to prevent activity prejudicial to the security of the State was upheld where the original record showed that the detention order and the related direction under the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act had been made and explained to the detenu on the recorded dates. The Court held that the safeguards under Section 8(1) and Section 10 were inapplicable because disclosure of grounds was restricted by the public-interest direction. It further held that habeas corpus relief must be tested on the date of hearing, so an earlier alleged illegality did not justify release if the detention was lawful when considered by the Court. Release was refused. en-us Tue, 07 Jul 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Dec 2017 15:52:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196603 Detention made to prevent activity prejudicial to the security of the State was upheld where the original record showed that the detention order and the related direction under the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act had been made and explained to the detenu on the recorded dates. The Court held that the safeguards under Section 8(1) and Section 10 were inapplicable because disclosure of grounds was restricted by the public-interest direction. It further held that habeas corpus relief must be tested on the date of hearing, so an earlier alleged illegality did not justify release if the detention was lawful when considered by the Court. Release was refused. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 07 Jul 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196603