https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766940 SC held that preventive detention of persons already in custody requires cogent material showing a real possibility of release on bail and a likelihood of prejudicial conduct thereafter; bare assumptions are insufficient, so the detention orders failed on that ground. It further held that Article 22(5) demands effective communication of the grounds of detention in a language the detenu understands; supplying papers in English to detenus unfamiliar with that language did not satisfy the constitutional requirement, so the detention was invalid. The Court also held that the detaining authority must record its own independent grounds and apply its mind, and mere adoption of police proposals vitiates the order. The detention orders were quashed and release directed. en-us Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Sep 2025 14:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766940 SC held that preventive detention of persons already in custody requires cogent material showing a real possibility of release on bail and a likelihood of prejudicial conduct thereafter; bare assumptions are insufficient, so the detention orders failed on that ground. It further held that Article 22(5) demands effective communication of the grounds of detention in a language the detenu understands; supplying papers in English to detenus unfamiliar with that language did not satisfy the constitutional requirement, so the detention was invalid. The Court also held that the detaining authority must record its own independent grounds and apply its mind, and mere adoption of police proposals vitiates the order. The detention orders were quashed and release directed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766940