https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296710 Preventive detention under Article 22 was examined on delay, non-supply of relied upon electronic material, representation handling, and the detention commencement date. Delay in passing or executing the order was treated as non-fatal where investigation was continuing and the detenus were evading custody, but unreasonable execution delay vitiated two detentions. Failure to supply relied upon USB and related materials denied an effective representation and invalidated those detention orders. Representations were found to have been considered within a reasonable time, and a representation sent only to the Advisory Board did not require separate independent consideration by authorities unaware of it. The detention period had to run from the actual date of detention. en-us Thu, 08 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Aug 2021 08:33:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296710 Preventive detention under Article 22 was examined on delay, non-supply of relied upon electronic material, representation handling, and the detention commencement date. Delay in passing or executing the order was treated as non-fatal where investigation was continuing and the detenus were evading custody, but unreasonable execution delay vitiated two detentions. Failure to supply relied upon USB and related materials denied an effective representation and invalidated those detention orders. Representations were found to have been considered within a reasonable time, and a representation sent only to the Advisory Board did not require separate independent consideration by authorities unaware of it. The detention period had to run from the actual date of detention. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 08 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296710