Page 91 - test_constitution 100

ART. 22 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 91
Preventive detention - In proceedings before Advisory Board, the detenue has no right of representation through lawyer. (State of Maharashtra v Zubair Haji Qasim, AIR 2008 SC 2825 : (2008)12 SCC 792).
Article 22(5) - The question of making a representation to the Advisory Board arises only after the order of detention had been passed and served on the detenue. Non-consideration of representation filed by the detenue before the detention order was passed did not vitiate the detention. (State of Tamil Nadu v R. Sasikumar, AIR 2008 SC 2827 : (2008)13 SCC 751 : 2008 AIR SCW 4680).
Non-communication of grounds of rejection of representation against detention - No violation of Article 22(5). (Union of India v Saleena, AIR 2016 SC 641 : (2016)3 SCC 437).
Order of preventive detention passed by Detaining Authority cannot be set aside at pre-execution stage. (State of Maharashtra v Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande, AIR 2008 SC 1705 : (2008)3 SCC 613).
‘Public order’, ‘law of order’ and the ‘security of the State’ fictionally draw three concentric circles, the largest representing law and order, the next representing public order and the smallest representing security of the State. (Collector and Dist. Magistrate v S. Sultan, AIR 2008 SC 2096 : (2008)15 SCC 191 : 2008 AIR SCW 2742).
The representation should be received by a person authorised to receive it. The Detaining Authority or the concerned authority of the Central Government may have authorised some members of the staff to receive representation or any official document. If the representation is handed over to or served on a person who is not authorised to receive it, the concerned authority cannot be held responsible if any delay is occasioned on account of inaction by such unauthorised person. (Union of India v Chaya Ghoshal, AIR 2005 SC 428 : (2005)10 SCC 97).
Order of detention passed after 15 months of the incident. Allegation was that the detenu was involved in fraudulent exports. Detention order was quashed. (Saeed Zakir Hussain Malik v State of Maharashtra, AIR 2012 SC 3235 : (2012)8 SCC 233).
Order of preventive detention - Challenge at pre-execution stage - Subhash Popatlal Dave v Union of India, AIR 2012 SC 3370 : (2012)7 SCC 533.
Writ petition challenging preventive detention at pre-execution stage can be entertained in exceptional circumstances. (Deepak Bajaj v State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 628 : (2008)16 SCC 14 : 2009 AIR SCW 7788).
Detention under COFEPOSA - Representation of Detenue - Constitutional imperative is early disposal of representation. (Abdul Nasar Adam Ismail v State of Maharashtra, AIR 2013 SC 1376 : (2013)4 SCC 435).
Detenu detained under COFEPOSA for indulging in smuggling activities. As his passport was seized, his detention was quashed. (Moulana Shamshunnisa v Additional Chief Secretary, AIR 2011 SC 1422).
A KLJ PUBLICATION