<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (7) TMI 1396 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300057</link>
    <description>Preventive detention was sustained under the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 because the detaining authority had cogent material to treat the detenu&#039;s repeated violent conduct, intimidation, and fatal incident as affecting public order rather than a mere law and order breach. Custody did not invalidate the order, as the authority recorded material showing a real likelihood of release on bail and a reasonable apprehension of further prejudicial acts. Allegations of extraneous influence, suppression of minor injuries, and denial of representation rights also failed; the statute required communication of the right to represent to the Government and Advisory Board, not to the detaining authority. The detention order was upheld and the writ petition dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2022 08:34:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=666742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (7) TMI 1396 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300057</link>
      <description>Preventive detention was sustained under the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 because the detaining authority had cogent material to treat the detenu&#039;s repeated violent conduct, intimidation, and fatal incident as affecting public order rather than a mere law and order breach. Custody did not invalidate the order, as the authority recorded material showing a real likelihood of release on bail and a reasonable apprehension of further prejudicial acts. Allegations of extraneous influence, suppression of minor injuries, and denial of representation rights also failed; the statute required communication of the right to represent to the Government and Advisory Board, not to the detaining authority. The detention order was upheld and the writ petition dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300057</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>