https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299979 The Supreme Court stated that, although the statutory scheme excluded representation by a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board, Article 22 required a fair and even-handed procedure. The detenu had no absolute right to lawyer representation, but where the State was heard on the merits through senior police and administrative officials, denial of comparable assistance to the detenu was impermissible. In that setting, equality and procedural fairness required at least the help of a friend so the hearing did not become one-sided. The denial of effective assistance therefore vitiated the detention, and the detention order was quashed. en-us Thu, 27 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Jan 2022 11:34:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299979 The Supreme Court stated that, although the statutory scheme excluded representation by a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board, Article 22 required a fair and even-handed procedure. The detenu had no absolute right to lawyer representation, but where the State was heard on the merits through senior police and administrative officials, denial of comparable assistance to the detenu was impermissible. In that setting, equality and procedural fairness required at least the help of a friend so the hearing did not become one-sided. The denial of effective assistance therefore vitiated the detention, and the detention order was quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 27 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299979