https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436625 Article 22(5) requires prompt consideration of a detenue's representation, but the obligations of the detaining authority and the Government differ under COFEPOSA. The Court held there was no real conflict between the earlier preventive detention decisions, so no reference to a larger Bench was needed, and a 60-day delay in Government consideration did not by itself vitiate detention where the statutory scheme was followed. However, supplying illegible Chinese documents meant the detenue could not make an effective representation, and that defect was treated as fatal. The detention order was therefore set aside. en-us Mon, 10 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Apr 2023 17:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436625 Article 22(5) requires prompt consideration of a detenue's representation, but the obligations of the detaining authority and the Government differ under COFEPOSA. The Court held there was no real conflict between the earlier preventive detention decisions, so no reference to a larger Bench was needed, and a 60-day delay in Government consideration did not by itself vitiate detention where the statutory scheme was followed. However, supplying illegible Chinese documents meant the detenue could not make an effective representation, and that defect was treated as fatal. The detention order was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 10 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436625