https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196989 Article 32 jurisdiction remained available to challenge preventive detention even though a representation was pending before the Advisory Board, because constitutional safeguards may be examined independently of that proceeding. Detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 could not rest on allegations of bootlegging, force and intimidation unless the material showed a definite adverse effect on public order, and the grounds and witness statements were not sufficiently specific. The vague and general allegations also impaired the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5). The preventive detention was therefore set aside. en-us Fri, 16 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:39:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196989 Article 32 jurisdiction remained available to challenge preventive detention even though a representation was pending before the Advisory Board, because constitutional safeguards may be examined independently of that proceeding. Detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 could not rest on allegations of bootlegging, force and intimidation unless the material showed a definite adverse effect on public order, and the grounds and witness statements were not sufficiently specific. The vague and general allegations also impaired the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5). The preventive detention was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196989