https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279230 Preventive detention under Article 22(5) is satisfied when the detenu receives the basic facts and material particulars needed for an effective representation; disclosure of the full evidence, source material, or corroborative records is not required. The Court found that the grounds served, together with the supplied CID extract, gave sufficient detail about the alleged speech and related circumstances, so the complaint of denial of representation failed. It also rejected the challenges based on alleged non-application of mind, non-filing of a counter-affidavit by the detaining authority, and claimed difficulty in instructing counsel before the Advisory Board, holding that no effective prejudice was shown. en-us Fri, 16 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Mar 2019 12:29:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279230 Preventive detention under Article 22(5) is satisfied when the detenu receives the basic facts and material particulars needed for an effective representation; disclosure of the full evidence, source material, or corroborative records is not required. The Court found that the grounds served, together with the supplied CID extract, gave sufficient detail about the alleged speech and related circumstances, so the complaint of denial of representation failed. It also rejected the challenges based on alleged non-application of mind, non-filing of a counter-affidavit by the detaining authority, and claimed difficulty in instructing counsel before the Advisory Board, holding that no effective prejudice was shown. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279230