https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789945 Preventive detention law does not confer an automatic right to legal representation before the Advisory Board; that facility arises only when the detaining authority or Government appears through a legal practitioner or legal adviser, so the limited production of records by officials did not invalidate the detention. Substantial compliance with disclosure obligations was found where the pen drive contents were shown in prison and efforts were made to supply the device, and the alleged defects in supplied material did not show denial of an effective representation. The communication of rejected representations by the same officer was treated as ministerial, not a defect. The detention orders were also upheld as supported by subjective satisfaction, a live and proximate link, and material negating the bail-likelihood challenge. en-us Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Apr 2026 08:21:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789945 Preventive detention law does not confer an automatic right to legal representation before the Advisory Board; that facility arises only when the detaining authority or Government appears through a legal practitioner or legal adviser, so the limited production of records by officials did not invalidate the detention. Substantial compliance with disclosure obligations was found where the pen drive contents were shown in prison and efforts were made to supply the device, and the alleged defects in supplied material did not show denial of an effective representation. The communication of rejected representations by the same officer was treated as ministerial, not a defect. The detention orders were also upheld as supported by subjective satisfaction, a live and proximate link, and material negating the bail-likelihood challenge. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789945