It is increasingly felt that in the context of 'deprivation of life and liberty' under Art. 21, the 'procedure established by law' carried with it the inherent right to legal assistance. Apart from authority c it is easy to appreciate that in overwhelming majority of cases a detenu can do nothing to help himself before the Advisory Board. The right to be heard before the Advisory Board would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not ·Comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. It is expected that Parliament while making a law to regulate the procedure before an Advisory Board under Art. 22 D (7) (c) of the Constitution should provide the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. It is incomprehensible that a person committing a crime should have under Art. 22(1) of the Constitution the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice, but a person under preventive detention, more often than not for his political beliefs, should be E deprived of this valuable right. It cannot be denied that preventive detention is an anachronism in a democratic society like ours. The detention of individuals without trial for any length of time, however short, is wholly inconsistent with the basic ideals of a parliamentary system of government. In the nature of things, under the law as it exists, a person under preventive detention is not entitled to legal F assistance. However. we think it is futile for us to attempt to project our personal views in a matter which lies in the realm of decision-making of Parliament. The matter is essentially political and as such it is the concern of the statesman and, therefore, within the domain of the Legislature, and not the Judiciary.
