https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310073 Article 22(4)(a) was construed to mean that the Advisory Board must determine whether preventive detention is justified, not fix the period of detention, so section 11(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was upheld as consistent with the Constitution. The Court also held that the grounds of detention, though lacking full particulars, were sufficient to enable an effective representation under Article 22(5), and that non-disclosure of certain details was permitted where public interest so required under Article 22(6). Allegations of mala fides, irrelevance, and inaccuracy in the detention grounds were rejected because the material had a rational connection with the statutory purpose and no ulterior motive was shown. en-us Fri, 24 May 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Oct 2023 11:16:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310073 Article 22(4)(a) was construed to mean that the Advisory Board must determine whether preventive detention is justified, not fix the period of detention, so section 11(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was upheld as consistent with the Constitution. The Court also held that the grounds of detention, though lacking full particulars, were sufficient to enable an effective representation under Article 22(5), and that non-disclosure of certain details was permitted where public interest so required under Article 22(6). Allegations of mala fides, irrelevance, and inaccuracy in the detention grounds were rejected because the material had a rational connection with the statutory purpose and no ulterior motive was shown. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 24 May 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310073