https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289829 The ordinance authorising preventive detention for the efficient prosecution of the war was held within legislative competence when read in the wartime defence context. The temporary evidentiary restriction in the ordinance was upheld because it operated only during the ordinance's currency and did not amount to a permanent abrogation of the Evidence Act. In challenging detention, the Court treated an admitted detention order as carrying a prima facie presumption of regularity, placing the burden on the detenue to prove fraud, lack of authority, or mala fides; that burden was not discharged. A later valid detention order could also sustain continued custody notwithstanding defects in an earlier order. en-us Fri, 19 Jan 1945 00:00:00 +0630 Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:12:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289829 The ordinance authorising preventive detention for the efficient prosecution of the war was held within legislative competence when read in the wartime defence context. The temporary evidentiary restriction in the ordinance was upheld because it operated only during the ordinance's currency and did not amount to a permanent abrogation of the Evidence Act. In challenging detention, the Court treated an admitted detention order as carrying a prima facie presumption of regularity, placing the burden on the detenue to prove fraud, lack of authority, or mala fides; that burden was not discharged. A later valid detention order could also sustain continued custody notwithstanding defects in an earlier order. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Jan 1945 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289829