https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299972 In preventive detention, delay in executing the detention order did not by itself break the live link where the detenu remained unavailable and the authorities acted promptly once traced, so the challenge on that ground failed. Delay in considering the detenu's representations also did not violate Article 22(5) because the papers were forwarded to the Advisory Board in the constitutional process and no inordinate, unexplained delay was shown, so that challenge also failed. However, continued detention was vitiated because the detenu was denied effective representation: relevant material, including a real opportunity to view CCTV footage and an earlier judgment in favour of co-noticees, was not supplied or placed before the Advisory Board, causing prejudice and breaching preventive detention safeguards. en-us Tue, 26 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Jan 2022 11:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299972 In preventive detention, delay in executing the detention order did not by itself break the live link where the detenu remained unavailable and the authorities acted promptly once traced, so the challenge on that ground failed. Delay in considering the detenu's representations also did not violate Article 22(5) because the papers were forwarded to the Advisory Board in the constitutional process and no inordinate, unexplained delay was shown, so that challenge also failed. However, continued detention was vitiated because the detenu was denied effective representation: relevant material, including a real opportunity to view CCTV footage and an earlier judgment in favour of co-noticees, was not supplied or placed before the Advisory Board, causing prejudice and breaching preventive detention safeguards. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 26 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299972