https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299900 Preventive detention orders were held invalid because the real basis of subjective satisfaction was not fully disclosed to the detenus. The Court found that relied upon materials, including crucial video footage, call detail records, travel particulars and passport extracts, were not supplied in the form used for detention, preventing an effective representation. It also held that the detaining authority's satisfaction could not be sustained on undisclosed connecting material, so the orders were not legally supportable. The Court further affirmed that detenus are entitled to meaningful legal access, confidential lawyer interviews within sight but out of earshot, and fair visitation and Advisory Board procedures. The detenus were directed to be released forthwith. en-us Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Jan 2022 07:22:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299900 Preventive detention orders were held invalid because the real basis of subjective satisfaction was not fully disclosed to the detenus. The Court found that relied upon materials, including crucial video footage, call detail records, travel particulars and passport extracts, were not supplied in the form used for detention, preventing an effective representation. It also held that the detaining authority's satisfaction could not be sustained on undisclosed connecting material, so the orders were not legally supportable. The Court further affirmed that detenus are entitled to meaningful legal access, confidential lawyer interviews within sight but out of earshot, and fair visitation and Advisory Board procedures. The detenus were directed to be released forthwith. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299900