https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277842 Detention under COFEPOSA was challenged on the ground that the detenu's representations were not considered promptly, and that the detaining authority acted with negligence and callousness in processing them. The constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) requires meaningful and timely consideration of a detenu's representations in preventive detention matters. The record also showed disputes over forwarding the representation to the Advisory Board and over informing the detenu of his right to make representations. The Court treated the delay and administrative inaction as a breach of constitutional imperatives and ordered the detenu's immediate release. en-us Tue, 23 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Dec 2018 12:56:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277842 Detention under COFEPOSA was challenged on the ground that the detenu's representations were not considered promptly, and that the detaining authority acted with negligence and callousness in processing them. The constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) requires meaningful and timely consideration of a detenu's representations in preventive detention matters. The record also showed disputes over forwarding the representation to the Advisory Board and over informing the detenu of his right to make representations. The Court treated the delay and administrative inaction as a breach of constitutional imperatives and ordered the detenu's immediate release. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277842