Preventive detention survives where a representation is considered promptly, even if forwarding is delayed, absent denial of Article 22(5) rights.

Preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act was challenged on the ground that the detenu's representation was not forwarded and considered promptly, allegedly violating Article 22(5). The Court examined the constitutional right to make an effective representation, the preventive detention scheme, and the Central Government's power to revoke detention under section 11. It found that the representation was considered by the Central Government and, when sent to the detaining authority, was considered on the same day it was received. Mere delay in forwarding, without delay in actual consideration or denial of the right to represent, did not invalidate the detention. No unexplained inaction or breach of constitutional safeguards was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was liable to be quashed on the ground that the representation was not forwarded and considered with promptitude, resulting in violation of the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The detention was made under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 after seizure of large quantities of dutiable and electronic goods from the detenus. The challenge centered on the handling of the representation addressed to the Central Government with a request that a copy be sent to the detaining authority. The legal position was examined in the light of the constitutional mandate under Article 22(5), the scheme of preventive detention, and the power of the Central Government to revoke detention under section 11 of the Act. It was held that the representation was in fact considered by the Central Government and, when forwarded, was considered by the detaining authority on the very day it was received. Reliance was placed on the principle that mere delay in forwarding a representation, without resulting delay in actual consideration by the concerned authority and without deprivation of the right to make a representation, does not by itself invalidate detention. The Court found no unexplained inaction or denial of constitutional safeguards.

Conclusion: The detention order was not invalidated by delay in forwarding or considering the representation, and the challenge to the detention failed.

---