https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41978 Preventive detention requires prompt consideration of the detenue's representation, because delay can infringe the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5). The explanation for the interval between receipt and disposal of the representation was found unsatisfactory and lacking clarity, and the delay was attributed to indifference rather than any convincing legal or factual justification. The detention order was therefore held vitiated for unexplained delay in dealing with the representation, amounting to breach of Article 22(5). en-us Tue, 28 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Jun 2010 13:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41978 Preventive detention requires prompt consideration of the detenue's representation, because delay can infringe the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5). The explanation for the interval between receipt and disposal of the representation was found unsatisfactory and lacking clarity, and the delay was attributed to indifference rather than any convincing legal or factual justification. The detention order was therefore held vitiated for unexplained delay in dealing with the representation, amounting to breach of Article 22(5). Case-Laws Customs Tue, 28 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41978