Abstract
A critical comment on the Court's treatment of the sufficiency of grounds in preventive detention, and the practical erosion of the representation right.
The judgment reaffirms the formal requirements of communication of grounds while quietly diluting their substance.
The comment traces the divergence between the stated standard and the standard applied on the facts.
It ends by identifying the procedural fix that would restore the representation right without disturbing the holding.
Criminal lawPreventive detentionLiberty