https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789945 Preventive detention under COFEPOSA was upheld because the detenu had no routine right to legal representation before the Advisory Board under Article 22(3)(b) and Section 8(e), and mere assistance by officials did not create a right to counsel. Substantial compliance was sufficient where the pen drive contents were shown on a laptop, attempts were made to supply the device, and relied upon documents were otherwise furnished. Rejection of representations was valid because the signing officer merely communicated decisions already taken by competent authorities. The detention was also supported by material showing subjective satisfaction, a live link with the incident, and a reasonable basis to apprehend release on bail. en-us Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Apr 2026 08:21:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789945 Preventive detention under COFEPOSA was upheld because the detenu had no routine right to legal representation before the Advisory Board under Article 22(3)(b) and Section 8(e), and mere assistance by officials did not create a right to counsel. Substantial compliance was sufficient where the pen drive contents were shown on a laptop, attempts were made to supply the device, and relied upon documents were otherwise furnished. Rejection of representations was valid because the signing officer merely communicated decisions already taken by competent authorities. The detention was also supported by material showing subjective satisfaction, a live link with the incident, and a reasonable basis to apprehend release on bail. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789945