https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300175 Preventive detention safeguards require the State to place the grounds of detention before the Advisory Board within the prescribed three-week period; forwarding the detention papers within time satisfied that requirement even though the Board meeting was later postponed. The detenu's representation, however, had to be dealt with consistently with Article 22(5) and the statutory scheme, and where Advisory Board proceedings were pending it should have been placed before the Board rather than rejected by the Government. Because the representation was not so forwarded and was instead rejected during pendency of Board proceedings, the Board's consideration and the confirmation of detention were vitiated, rendering the detention illegal and liable to be set aside. en-us Tue, 07 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Jan 2022 20:47:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300175 Preventive detention safeguards require the State to place the grounds of detention before the Advisory Board within the prescribed three-week period; forwarding the detention papers within time satisfied that requirement even though the Board meeting was later postponed. The detenu's representation, however, had to be dealt with consistently with Article 22(5) and the statutory scheme, and where Advisory Board proceedings were pending it should have been placed before the Board rather than rejected by the Government. Because the representation was not so forwarded and was instead rejected during pendency of Board proceedings, the Board's consideration and the confirmation of detention were vitiated, rendering the detention illegal and liable to be set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 07 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300175