As per case facts, an order for the appellant's detention under the COFEPOSA Act was issued, and grounds were served. After the COFEPOSA was amended, a declaration was made by ... the Additional Secretary stating that the appellant was involved in smuggling in a vulnerable area. Following a reference to and opinion from the Advisory Board, the government confirmed the detention for a period of two years. The question arose whether the Advisory Board, when recommending detention under the amended Act for an extended period, must explicitly state its opinion that 'continued detention' is necessary, or if a general opinion affirming 'detention' is sufficient to enable a two-year detention. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the Advisory Board must specifically consider and state its opinion on whether there is sufficient cause for the 'continued detention' of the person concerned. A mere statement affirming 'detention' is insufficient for the extended period. Consequently, in the absence of such a specific opinion, detention exceeding one year lacks legal sanction, and the detenus were directed to be set at liberty.