https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306890 Appointment of counsel and a special public prosecutor was not impermissible merely by reference to the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, because the writ was under Article 226, the High Court was not acting as a Special Court under that Act, and the case had not been entrusted to the NIA; the objection to representation failed. Habeas corpus was unavailable against detention pursuant to a subsisting judicial remand order, since the order was not shown to be wholly without jurisdiction or patently illegal. The Additional Sessions Judge was acting under administrative assignment of urgent remand work, and any defect was in any event saved by the de facto doctrine. The remand order was therefore upheld and detention was not illegal. en-us Mon, 22 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Mar 2023 22:18:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306890 Appointment of counsel and a special public prosecutor was not impermissible merely by reference to the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, because the writ was under Article 226, the High Court was not acting as a Special Court under that Act, and the case had not been entrusted to the NIA; the objection to representation failed. Habeas corpus was unavailable against detention pursuant to a subsisting judicial remand order, since the order was not shown to be wholly without jurisdiction or patently illegal. The Additional Sessions Judge was acting under administrative assignment of urgent remand work, and any defect was in any event saved by the de facto doctrine. The remand order was therefore upheld and detention was not illegal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 22 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306890