Preventive detention safeguard breached when a detenu's representation is not forwarded to the Central Government, invalidating detention.

A preventive detention statute conferring on the Central Government the power to revoke a State detention order necessarily requires a real and effective opportunity for the detenu to place a representation before that Government. Where a properly addressed representation is made through jail authorities but is not forwarded at all, the detenu is deprived of the safeguard protected by Article 22(5) of the Constitution. That failure defeats the statutory revocation mechanism and renders the detention illegal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the non-forwarding of the detenu's representation to the Central Government deprived him of the statutory and constitutional right to seek revocation of the detention order and thereby rendered the detention illegal.

Analysis: Section 11(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 confers on the Central Government the power to revoke an order of detention made by the State Government. That power necessarily carries with it a real opportunity for the detenu to make a representation to that Government. Where a representation addressed to the Central Government is made through the jail authorities but is not forwarded at all, the detenu is deprived of an effective safeguard against detention. The protection under Article 22(5) of the Constitution requires that such representation be dealt with in a meaningful manner, and the failure to transmit it defeats that protection.

Conclusion: The non-forwarding of the representation to the Central Government violated the detenu's statutory and constitutional rights and made the continued detention illegal.

Ratio Decidendi: When a detenu makes a properly addressed representation to the Central Government under a preventive detention statute conferring revocation power on that Government, failure to forward and consider the representation vitiates the detention as it denies an effective constitutional safeguard.

---