https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296659 Under the Preventive Detention Act, section 12 of the 1951 amendment continued only detention orders that were already valid and in force, and that continuation was not an unconstitutional exercise of executive power. A detention order under section 3 was distinct from the order fixing the place of detention under section 4, so failure to state the place or period did not invalidate the detention order, and a later valid section 4 order could regularise custody. Article 20 did not bar continued preventive detention because it is not punitive. The Act also required no fresh opportunity of representation before the Advisory Board and no separate communication of confirmation. en-us Mon, 11 Jun 1951 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Jul 2021 17:20:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296659 Under the Preventive Detention Act, section 12 of the 1951 amendment continued only detention orders that were already valid and in force, and that continuation was not an unconstitutional exercise of executive power. A detention order under section 3 was distinct from the order fixing the place of detention under section 4, so failure to state the place or period did not invalidate the detention order, and a later valid section 4 order could regularise custody. Article 20 did not bar continued preventive detention because it is not punitive. The Act also required no fresh opportunity of representation before the Advisory Board and no separate communication of confirmation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 11 Jun 1951 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296659