https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298138 Delay in deciding a detenu's later, substantially repetitive representation did not vitiate preventive detention where no separate prejudice was shown. The detention order was sustained because the detaining authority had relevant material before it and preventive detention does not permit judicial reappraisal of the sufficiency of that material once bona fide subjective satisfaction is reached. Non-supply of the exact intelligence report did not breach constitutional safeguards where adequate material was disclosed and no prejudice resulted. A detenu has no right to legal representation before the Advisory Board, and denial of a friend's assistance did not invalidate detention absent prejudice on the facts. en-us Fri, 04 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Oct 2021 15:22:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298138 Delay in deciding a detenu's later, substantially repetitive representation did not vitiate preventive detention where no separate prejudice was shown. The detention order was sustained because the detaining authority had relevant material before it and preventive detention does not permit judicial reappraisal of the sufficiency of that material once bona fide subjective satisfaction is reached. Non-supply of the exact intelligence report did not breach constitutional safeguards where adequate material was disclosed and no prejudice resulted. A detenu has no right to legal representation before the Advisory Board, and denial of a friend's assistance did not invalidate detention absent prejudice on the facts. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298138