https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43307 Preventive detention under Article 22(5) requires the detaining authority to consider and decide a detenu's representation promptly. Where the representation was not decided on merits and the communication issued by the authorities did not amount to an actual decision on release, the constitutional safeguard was not satisfied. Denial of a timely legal interview with counsel also impaired the detenus' ability to make an effective representation and was arbitrary in the absence of any justified rule restricting such access. On these grounds, the detention order could not be sustained and was quashed. en-us Mon, 18 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:42:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43307 Preventive detention under Article 22(5) requires the detaining authority to consider and decide a detenu's representation promptly. Where the representation was not decided on merits and the communication issued by the authorities did not amount to an actual decision on release, the constitutional safeguard was not satisfied. Denial of a timely legal interview with counsel also impaired the detenus' ability to make an effective representation and was arbitrary in the absence of any justified rule restricting such access. On these grounds, the detention order could not be sustained and was quashed. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 18 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43307