Preventive detention representation must be considered only by the authority addressed, preserving prompt constitutional review.

Article 22(5) requires a detenu's representation to be considered by the authority competent to deal with it, and not by every authority empowered to revoke or modify a preventive detention order. The detaining authority, State Government and Central Government each operate within their respective statutory fields, so a representation addressed to one need not be circulated for consideration by others. That approach preserves prompt consideration and avoids delay. Earlier decisions did not establish any rule that all authorities must consider representations not addressed to them.

---

---

Issues: Whether a representation made by or on behalf of a detenu to one authority must be considered by all the authorities empowered under the preventive detention , or only by the authority to whom it is addressed.

Analysis: The right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is the right to make a representation and to have it considered by the authority competent to deal with it. The statutory scheme permits different authorities to revoke or modify a detention order, and the power of the detaining authority, the State Government, and the Central Government operates within their respective fields. Requiring every authority to obtain and consider copies of representations made to other authorities would not be consistent with the constitutional mandate of prompt consideration and would introduce delay. The earlier decisions relied upon did not lay down that every authority must consider representations not addressed to it.

Conclusion: A representation made to one authority need not be considered by all other authorities; each authority is required to consider only the representation made to it. The High Court's view was set aside and the appeal succeeded.

---