Can a petitioner argue that a second detention notice fixing the detention period without an advisory board report is ultra vires in the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Sources
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Case Analysis: Read case analysis

Suppose a person is taken into custody by the investigating agency on the basis of an FIR that alleges involvement in activities deemed a threat to public order, and the State issues a detention order under a preventive detention statute. The order is communicated to the detainee, but before the mandatory advisory board can examine the case, the State issues a second notice fixing a specific expiry date for the detention. The detainee, now the petitioner, challenges the validity of the second notice, arguing that the fixation of the detention period without the advisory board’s report violates the procedural safeguards prescribed by the statute.

The factual matrix mirrors a classic preventive‑detention dispute: the accused is initially detained under a provision that empowers the executive to order detention pending an inquiry. The statute requires that any determination of the period of detention be made only after an advisory board, constituted under the law, has reported that sufficient cause exists. In the present scenario, the State’s second notice attempts to pre‑empt the advisory board process by unilaterally fixing the detention term, thereby sidestepping the mandatory procedural step.

At the procedural stage when the second notice is served, the accused’s ordinary defence—raising factual objections to the allegations or seeking bail—does not address the core legal infirmity. The grievance is not merely about the merits of the accusations but about the statutory violation that renders the detention order ultra vires. Because the detention continues without compliance with the advisory‑board requirement, the remedy must target the illegality of the order itself rather than the underlying factual allegations.

To obtain relief, the petitioner must approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the appropriate forum for challenging the legality of a detention order issued by a State authority. The High Court possesses jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of habeas corpus, compelling the State to produce the detainee and justify the detention in accordance with law. A writ petition before the High Court can directly confront the procedural defect and seek the quashing of the second notice and the attendant detention.

Filing a writ of habeas corpus before the Punjab and Haryana High Court is the natural recourse because the Constitution empowers the High Court to enforce fundamental rights, including the right to personal liberty under Article 21. The petition will allege that the State’s action infringes this right by fixing the detention period without the advisory board’s mandatory report, thereby breaching the statutory scheme and the constitutional guarantee of due process.

The petition will set out the chronological sequence of events: the initial detention, the service of the first notice, the pending advisory‑board hearing, and the subsequent issuance of the second notice fixing a termination date. It will emphasize that the second notice constitutes a fresh detention order, as it is accompanied by fresh grounds of detention, and that the statutory requirement of a board report before fixing any period has been ignored.

In support of the writ, the petitioner will rely on the preventive‑detention act’s provisions that make the advisory board’s report a pre‑condition to any fixation of detention period. The petition will also cite precedent that the High Court must intervene when a statutory procedure designed to safeguard liberty is bypassed. By demonstrating that the State’s order is ultra vires, the petitioner seeks an order directing the release of the accused and the nullification of the second notice.

Legal representation is crucial at this juncture. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will draft the petition, frame the relief sought, and argue that the State’s action is unconstitutional. The counsel will also anticipate the State’s defence that the second notice merely clarifies the duration of an existing order, and will counter that such clarification is impermissible without the advisory board’s findings.

The High Court, upon receiving the petition, will likely issue a notice to the State, requiring it to show that the advisory board’s report was obtained before the fixation of the detention period. The court may also direct the State to produce the detainee for examination, thereby ensuring that the liberty of the accused is not curtailed without due process.

If the State fails to demonstrate compliance with the statutory procedure, the Punjab and Haryana High Court can issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering the immediate release of the petitioner. The court may also direct the State to withdraw the second notice and to initiate fresh proceedings before the advisory board, thereby restoring the statutory balance between executive power and individual liberty.

In the event that the State argues the existence of a pending advisory‑board report, the court will scrutinise the timeline and the content of the report, if any, to ascertain whether the fixation of the detention period preceded the board’s conclusion. The court’s analysis will hinge on whether the procedural requirement was satisfied, not on the merits of the underlying allegations.

Should the High Court grant the writ, the relief will not only secure the petitioner’s release but also reinforce the principle that any deviation from the prescribed procedure in preventive‑detention cases is liable to be struck down. This outcome underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional rights against executive overreach.

Conversely, if the State successfully demonstrates that the advisory board’s report was obtained before the second notice, the court may dismiss the petition or modify the relief, perhaps ordering a review of the detention period rather than outright release. Nonetheless, the procedural scrutiny remains the pivotal issue.

Throughout the proceedings, the petitioner may seek interim relief, such as a direction for the State to keep the detainee in judicial custody pending the hearing, to prevent any further arbitrary action. The counsel will ensure that the petition reflects all procedural nuances, thereby presenting a robust challenge to the State’s order.

In sum, the legal problem arises from the State’s premature fixation of the detention period without the advisory board’s mandatory report, a breach that cannot be remedied by ordinary defence strategies. The appropriate procedural remedy is a writ of habeas corpus filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, a route that directly addresses the statutory violation and seeks the quashing of the unlawful detention order.

Question: Does the Punjab and Haryana High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ of habeas corpus challenging the second detention notice that fixed the period of detention without an advisory‑board report?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the accused was taken into custody under an FIR alleging a threat to public order and subsequently placed under a preventive‑detention order. The State then issued a second notice fixing a termination date before the advisory board, which the statute mandates to convene, could submit its findings. Because the detention continues within the territory of the State, the High Court possesses territorial jurisdiction to hear the petition. Moreover, the Constitution empowers the High Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus under its original jurisdiction when a fundamental right to personal liberty is infringed. The petition therefore falls squarely within the High Court’s jurisdiction to enforce Article 21. Procedurally, the petitioner must file the writ under Article 226, setting out the chronology of the first notice, the pending advisory‑board process, and the issuance of the second notice. The High Court will then issue a notice to the State, requiring it to produce the detainee and justify the legality of the second notice. The practical implication for the accused is that, if the court finds the jurisdiction proper, it can compel the State to either produce the advisory‑board report or release the detainee. For the State, a finding of jurisdiction obliges it to defend the order before the High Court, potentially exposing it to a quashing order. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will frame the petition to highlight the statutory breach and the constitutional violation, ensuring that the court’s jurisdictional basis is unmistakable. The outcome of this jurisdictional assessment will determine whether the High Court can proceed to examine the substantive merits of the procedural defect, thereby shaping the entire trajectory of the litigation.

Question: What is the legal effect of fixing a detention period through a second notice before the advisory board’s report, and how does this affect the validity of the detention order?

Answer: The statute governing preventive detention expressly requires that any fixation of the detention period be predicated on a report from an advisory board that has examined the grounds of detention. By issuing a second notice that unilaterally sets an expiry date, the State bypasses this mandatory pre‑condition. Legally, such an action renders the second notice ultra vires because it contravenes the procedural safeguards designed to protect personal liberty. The effect is that the second notice constitutes a fresh detention order rather than a mere clarification of an existing one. Consequently, the detention continues without lawful authority, exposing the State to a writ of habeas corpus. Procedurally, the petitioner can move to quash the second notice on the ground of procedural invalidity, seeking an order that declares the detention unlawful and directs immediate release. The practical implication for the accused is that the unlawful continuation of custody can be terminated without the need to contest the substantive allegations. For the prosecution, the State must either produce a valid advisory‑board report before fixing any period or withdraw the second notice. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will argue that the statutory scheme is a condition precedent, and any deviation defeats the legality of the detention. The court, upon recognizing the breach, is likely to issue a writ directing the State to release the petitioner and to refrain from fixing detention periods without the required advisory‑board findings, thereby reinforcing the procedural guardrails intended by the preventive‑detention framework.

Question: How does the timing of the advisory board’s report influence the court’s assessment of whether the second notice is a fresh detention order or a permissible amendment?

Answer: The timeline is pivotal. The facts indicate that the advisory board had not yet convened or submitted its findings when the State issued the second notice. Under the statutory scheme, the advisory board’s report is a condition precedent to any determination of the detention period. If the report were obtained prior to the issuance of the second notice, the State could argue that the notice merely operationalizes a decision already vetted by the board, rendering it a permissible amendment. However, the absence of such a report transforms the second notice into a fresh detention order, because it introduces new grounds and a fixed expiry date without the mandated procedural review. In court, the petitioner will present the chronology, highlighting the gap between the first notice and the advisory‑board hearing, and the subsequent premature issuance of the second notice. The court will scrutinize the State’s records to ascertain whether any advisory‑board report existed at the relevant time. If none is found, the court will deem the second notice ultra vires and order its quashing. For the accused, this timing analysis provides a clear avenue to challenge the legality of continued detention without needing to dispute the substantive allegations. For the prosecution, the State must either produce a contemporaneous advisory‑board report or acknowledge the procedural lapse, potentially leading to the dismissal of the second notice. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will emphasize the statutory chronology, arguing that the procedural safeguard cannot be sidestepped by administrative convenience. The practical outcome hinges on the court’s determination of the report’s existence; a finding of non‑existence will likely result in immediate release, whereas a report predating the notice could sustain the detention, albeit subject to further judicial review.

Question: What interim relief can the petitioner seek while the writ petition is pending, and what are the procedural requirements for obtaining such relief?

Answer: The petitioner may apply for interim relief in the form of a direction that the detainee be placed in judicial custody pending the final decision on the writ. This request is premised on the principle that the State should not be allowed to continue an unlawful detention while the court determines the merits of the petition. To obtain this relief, the petitioner must file an application for interim relief alongside the writ, citing the procedural defect of the second notice and the risk of continued liberty deprivation. The High Court will then consider whether the balance of convenience tilts in favor of the petitioner, examining factors such as the seriousness of the allegations, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the potential prejudice to the State if the detainee is released prematurely. Procedurally, the court may issue a notice to the State, inviting it to respond to the interim application. The State may argue that release could jeopardize public order, but it must also demonstrate compliance with the statutory safeguards, which it has not. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will craft the interim relief application to underscore the urgency and the constitutional violation, seeking a direction that the detainee be kept in a neutral facility rather than police or executive custody. If the court grants the interim relief, the detainee will be transferred to judicial custody, reducing the risk of coercion and preserving the integrity of the forthcoming hearing. For the State, such an order imposes a procedural check, compelling it to either produce the advisory‑board report or face the prospect of the detainee’s release. The practical implication is that interim relief can preserve the petitioner’s liberty during the pendency of the writ, while also signaling to the State the seriousness of the procedural breach.

Question: What are the possible outcomes of the writ petition, and how would each outcome affect the rights of the accused and the authority of the State?

Answer: The High Court’s decision will hinge on whether it finds the second notice to be ultra vires. If the court determines that the notice is a fresh detention order issued without the advisory board’s report, it will likely grant the writ, quash the second notice, and order the immediate release of the accused. This outcome reaffirms the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and underscores the inviolability of procedural safeguards in preventive‑detention regimes. The State’s authority to detain will be curtailed, compelling it to adhere strictly to the statutory process, including obtaining an advisory‑board report before fixing any detention period. Conversely, if the court finds that the advisory board’s report was in fact obtained before the issuance of the second notice, it may deem the notice a permissible amendment, thereby upholding the detention. In that scenario, the court may still impose conditions, such as directing the State to produce the report on record and to ensure that the detainee’s rights are protected during the remaining period. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will prepare arguments for both possibilities, emphasizing the procedural defect and the potential for unlawful deprivation of liberty. The practical effect of a quashing order is immediate freedom for the accused and a precedent that deters future procedural shortcuts by the executive. If the petition is dismissed, the accused remains in custody, but the State’s action will have been validated, reinforcing its power to impose preventive detention provided statutory procedures are meticulously followed. Either outcome will shape the balance between individual rights and state security, with the court’s reasoning likely to influence future preventive‑detention cases and the conduct of investigating agencies.

Question: Why does the Punjab and Haryana High Court have the appropriate jurisdiction to entertain a petition challenging the State’s second notice fixing the detention period without an advisory‑board report?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the detainee was taken into custody under a preventive‑detention statute that empowers the State to order detention pending an inquiry by an advisory board. The second notice, issued before the board’s report, attempts to fix a termination date, thereby creating a fresh detention order. Under the Constitution, a High Court possesses original jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus when a fundamental right to liberty is infringed. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, being the highest court in the State, is empowered by Article 226 to examine the legality of executive actions that affect personal liberty. The petition therefore must be filed in that court because the detention order emanates from a State authority and the remedy sought—quashing the unlawful notice and securing release—falls within the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Moreover, the preventive‑detention law designates the High Court as the forum for reviewing the legality of detention orders, not the lower courts, ensuring a uniform interpretation of procedural safeguards. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will draft the petition, frame the relief, and argue that the State’s action violates both the statutory pre‑condition of an advisory‑board report and the constitutional guarantee of due process. The High Court will then issue a notice to the State, requiring it to produce the detainee and justify the detention in accordance with law. If the State cannot demonstrate compliance with the advisory‑board requirement, the court can issue a writ directing immediate release and nullify the second notice. This procedural route directly addresses the statutory defect, bypassing any need for the accused to rely solely on factual denials, which would not cure the procedural illegality at this stage.

Question: What procedural steps must the petitioner follow to obtain a writ of habeas corpus, and why does a purely factual defence of the allegations fail to provide an adequate remedy?

Answer: The first step is to engage competent counsel, preferably lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court, who will prepare a petition under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The petition must set out the chronological facts: the initial detention, service of the first notice, pending advisory‑board hearing, and the issuance of the second notice fixing a detention period. It must then allege that the second notice is ultra vires because it was issued without the mandatory advisory‑board report, thereby breaching the statutory scheme and the constitutional right to personal liberty. The petition is filed in the appropriate registry, accompanied by an affidavit confirming the detainee’s custody and the copies of the notices. Upon filing, the court issues a notice to the State, compelling it to show cause why the detention should continue. The State must produce the advisory‑board report, if any, and justify the fixation of the period. Throughout this process, the petitioner’s factual defence—denying involvement in the alleged activity—does not address the core procedural defect. The law requires that the period of detention be fixed only after the board’s report; even if the factual allegations were disproved, the illegal fixation would still render the detention unlawful. Consequently, the remedy must target the procedural infirmity, not the merits of the case. The High Court, after hearing arguments, can issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering the State to produce the detainee and, if the procedural requirement is unmet, direct immediate release and set aside the second notice. This procedural approach ensures that the constitutional safeguard against arbitrary detention is enforced, whereas a factual defence alone would leave the unlawful detention intact because the legal defect persists irrespective of the truth of the allegations.

Question: Why might the petitioner also consider retaining a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court even though the writ petition is filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Answer: Chandigarh, being the shared capital of the two States, hosts the principal seat of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and many practitioners specialize in its procedural nuances. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court will have immediate access to the court’s registry, clerkship, and procedural rules, facilitating efficient filing and service of documents. Moreover, the proximity to the court allows the counsel to attend hearings promptly, respond to interim orders, and engage with the bench during oral arguments. Engaging a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court also provides strategic advantage because the counsel is likely familiar with precedent decisions of that specific bench on preventive‑detention matters, enabling tailored arguments that highlight procedural violations. While the petition is technically before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the physical location of the court is Chandigarh; therefore, the terms “lawyer in Chandigarh High Court” and “lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court” are interchangeable in practice. The counsel can also coordinate with other lawyers in the region, such as lawyers in Chandigarh High Court who may have experience in filing revision or appeal applications should the initial writ be dismissed. This network can be crucial for preparing a robust case, including drafting supplementary petitions, seeking interim bail, or filing a revision under the court’s inherent powers. Hence, the petitioner’s search for a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court is a pragmatic step to ensure competent representation that is well‑versed in the local procedural landscape, thereby enhancing the likelihood of obtaining effective relief.

Question: How does the statutory requirement of an advisory board influence the petitioner’s option to seek revision or appeal, and what relief can be pursued through the High Court’s writ jurisdiction?

Answer: The preventive‑detention statute mandates that any fixation of the detention period must follow a report from an advisory board that has examined the grounds of detention. This procedural safeguard is designed to prevent arbitrary extensions of liberty deprivation. Because the second notice was issued before such a report, the detention order is procedurally defective. The petitioner can therefore move the High Court not only for a writ of habeas corpus but also for a revision of the detention order on the ground of jurisdictional error. A revision petition, filed by lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court, would argue that the State acted beyond its statutory authority by fixing the period without the board’s findings, rendering the order void ab initio. The High Court, exercising its inherent powers, can set aside the second notice, direct the State to withdraw the detention, and order the detainee’s release. Additionally, the petitioner may seek an interim direction for judicial custody while the advisory board conducts its inquiry, ensuring that the detainee is not placed in police lock‑up without oversight. The writ jurisdiction also permits the court to issue a mandamus directing the State to convene the advisory board and to refrain from any further fixation of the period until the board’s report is received. If the High Court grants the writ, it will order the immediate release of the petitioner and nullify the second notice, thereby restoring compliance with the statutory scheme. Should the State appeal the writ, the petitioner can rely on the same procedural defect in the appellate forum, reinforcing that the core issue is the violation of the advisory‑board requirement, not the factual allegations. Thus, the advisory board’s role shapes both the immediate writ relief and any subsequent revision or appeal, ensuring that the procedural integrity of the preventive‑detention framework is upheld.

Question: What procedural defect exists in the State’s second notice fixing the detention period, and how should a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court frame this issue in a habeas corpus petition?

Answer: The core procedural defect lies in the State’s unilateral fixation of the detention period without first obtaining the mandatory advisory‑board report, a step expressly required by the preventive‑detention statute before any duration may be set. This omission renders the second notice ultra vires because the statutory scheme creates a two‑stage process: first, the advisory board must examine the material and certify sufficient cause; second, only after that certification may the executive determine the period of detention. In the present facts, the State issued the second notice and fixed an expiry date while the advisory board’s inquiry was still pending, thereby bypassing the pre‑condition and violating the due‑process guarantee embedded in the statute and the constitutional right to personal liberty. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court should therefore structure the habeas corpus petition around the breach of statutory procedure, emphasizing that the detention order is not merely an administrative clarification but a fresh order that lacks legal foundation. The petition must set out a clear chronological narrative, attaching copies of the first notice, the second notice, and any correspondence indicating the pending advisory‑board hearing. It should invoke the constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 21 and Article 226, arguing that the State’s action defeats the protective purpose of the advisory board, which is to act as a safeguard against arbitrary deprivation of liberty. The relief sought must be the quashing of the second notice and the immediate release of the petitioner, or alternatively, an order directing the State to produce the advisory‑board report before any fixation of the period can be entertained. By anchoring the argument in procedural illegality rather than the merits of the allegations, the counsel maximizes the chance of a swift judicial intervention, as the High Court is obligated to strike down any order that circumvents a mandatory statutory requirement. The petition should also request that the court direct the State to keep the petitioner in judicial custody pending the hearing, thereby preventing further executive overreach while the procedural defect is resolved.

Question: How can the accused challenge the admissibility of the second notice as a fresh detention order, and what evidentiary documents should the counsel gather to support the claim?

Answer: To contest the admissibility of the second notice, the accused must demonstrate that it constitutes a fresh detention order rather than a mere administrative clarification of an existing order, and that it therefore triggers the full statutory compliance regime, including the advisory‑board prerequisite. The defence should gather the original detention order, the first notice communicating the grounds of detention, and the second notice itself, highlighting the inclusion of fresh grounds of detention that were served after the second notice. These fresh grounds are a statutory hallmark of a new order, indicating that the State intended to restart the procedural clock. Additionally, the counsel should obtain any internal memoranda, minutes of the advisory‑board convening, and communications between the investigating agency and the State authority that reveal the status of the board’s report at the time the second notice was issued. Copies of the advisory‑board’s terms of reference and any draft reports can further illustrate that the board had not yet rendered a finding, reinforcing the argument that the statutory condition was unmet. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would also seek the service logs and acknowledgment receipts to establish the timeline, showing that the second notice predates any advisory‑board conclusion. The defence can file an affidavit from the accused or a witness attesting to the receipt of the second notice and the absence of any board report. Moreover, the counsel should request the production of the State’s internal procedural checklist, if any, to expose the procedural lapse. By presenting this documentary matrix, the defence can argue that the second notice is a fresh order that is ultra vires without the board’s certification, rendering it inadmissible and subject to quashing. The strategy should also include a request for the court to treat the second notice as a separate detention order, thereby invoking the full suite of safeguards, including the right to be heard, the right to legal representation, and the requirement of a written advisory‑board report before any period can be fixed. This evidentiary approach not only challenges the legality of the notice but also forces the State to justify its actions within the statutory framework, increasing the likelihood of relief.

Question: What are the risks of continued custody for the petitioner before the advisory board’s report, and how can a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court seek interim relief to mitigate those risks?

Answer: Continued custody without the advisory‑board’s certification exposes the petitioner to several acute risks: the erosion of the presumption of innocence, the possibility of indefinite detention beyond the statutory maximum, and the psychological and physical hardships associated with prolonged incarceration. Moreover, the absence of a board report deprives the petitioner of a critical procedural safeguard designed to assess the sufficiency of cause, thereby increasing the likelihood of an arbitrary extension of liberty deprivation. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can mitigate these risks by filing an urgent interim application for a direction that the petitioner be placed in judicial custody rather than police or administrative custody, ensuring that the conditions of confinement meet humane standards and that the petitioner’s rights are protected pending the board’s findings. The counsel should also seek a stay on the operation of the second notice, arguing that the notice is ultra vires and that its enforcement would contravene the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty. In the interim application, the lawyer must attach the second notice, the first notice, and any proof of the pending advisory‑board hearing, emphasizing the procedural defect and the imminent danger of irreversible prejudice if the petitioner remains in ordinary custody. The application should request that the High Court issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the State to produce the petitioner before the court and to justify the continued detention in light of the missing board report. Additionally, the counsel can ask for a direction that the State furnish a copy of the advisory‑board’s draft report, if any, to enable the court to assess whether the board’s deliberations have been compromised by the premature fixation of the detention period. By securing judicial custody and a stay, the petitioner’s exposure to further executive overreach is curtailed, and the court is positioned to scrutinize the legality of the detention before any irreversible harm occurs. This interim relief also serves as a strategic lever, compelling the State to either produce the requisite board report or withdraw the second notice, thereby preserving the petitioner’s liberty pending a full hearing on the merits of the procedural challenge.

Question: How should the prosecution anticipate and counter the defence arguments about procedural compliance, and what strategic steps can the defence lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court take to pre‑empt those defenses?

Answer: The prosecution is likely to argue that the second notice merely clarifies the duration of an existing detention and does not constitute a fresh order, contending that the advisory‑board’s report was either already obtained or was forthcoming, thereby satisfying the statutory requirement. To counter this, the prosecution must produce the advisory‑board’s final report, the minutes of its deliberations, and any official communication confirming that the board had indeed rendered a finding before the second notice was issued. They may also rely on the State’s internal procedural logs to demonstrate compliance with the statutory timeline. Anticipating this, the defence lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court should pre‑emptively request the production of the advisory‑board report through a discovery application, arguing that without it the court cannot assess the legality of the fixation of the detention period. Simultaneously, the defence should file a detailed affidavit outlining the exact dates of service of the first and second notices, the lack of any board report at those times, and the presence of fresh grounds of detention, thereby establishing that the second notice is a new order. The counsel can also seek an interlocutory injunction to restrain the State from acting on the second notice until the board’s report is produced, emphasizing the risk of irreversible prejudice. Strategically, the defence should highlight the legislative intent behind the advisory‑board requirement, underscoring that it is a safeguard against arbitrary executive action, and that any deviation undermines the constitutional guarantee of due process. By framing the argument around statutory purpose rather than mere technicalities, the defence can persuade the court that the State’s procedural lapse is fatal to the legitimacy of the detention. Additionally, the defence may request that the court appoint an independent expert to review the board’s draft, if any, to ensure that the report was not a perfunctory exercise. These steps collectively aim to force the prosecution to substantiate its claim of compliance, while the defence maintains pressure on the State to either produce the requisite board report or withdraw the second notice, thereby preserving the petitioner’s liberty and reinforcing the procedural safeguards embedded in the preventive‑detention framework.