https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306911 Preventive detention could not be fixed for the full twelve-month maximum in a single order where the statute required an initial detention period of three months and further extensions only from time to time in periods not exceeding three months. Section 13's maximum limit did not permit bypassing the staged extension mechanism, and the requirement aligned with Article 22(4)(a) of the Constitution, which preserves periodic review through the prescribed process. An order making detention operative for twelve months at the outset was therefore illegal and unsustainable, and the detention order was set aside. en-us Thu, 08 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 05 Mar 2023 16:59:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306911 Preventive detention could not be fixed for the full twelve-month maximum in a single order where the statute required an initial detention period of three months and further extensions only from time to time in periods not exceeding three months. Section 13's maximum limit did not permit bypassing the staged extension mechanism, and the requirement aligned with Article 22(4)(a) of the Constitution, which preserves periodic review through the prescribed process. An order making detention operative for twelve months at the outset was therefore illegal and unsustainable, and the detention order was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 08 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306911