https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277406 The court rejected the applications challenging the preventive detention orders, emphasizing the need for the Advisory Board to review the case. It highlighted the importance of ensuring detention orders are used for preventive purposes, not as punitive measures, and underscored the complexities of balancing preventive detention with ongoing criminal prosecutions. The burden of proving mala fides in detention orders was placed on the detainees, who failed to substantiate their allegations in this case. en-us Thu, 03 May 1951 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Dec 2018 16:25:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277406 The court rejected the applications challenging the preventive detention orders, emphasizing the need for the Advisory Board to review the case. It highlighted the importance of ensuring detention orders are used for preventive purposes, not as punitive measures, and underscored the complexities of balancing preventive detention with ongoing criminal prosecutions. The burden of proving mala fides in detention orders was placed on the detainees, who failed to substantiate their allegations in this case. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 03 May 1951 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277406