Detenu's right to effective representation requires forwarding requested copies to the Central Government when revocation power exists.

Detention orders were treated as invalid where detenus specifically requested that their representations be copied and forwarded to the Central Government, but the detaining authority and the State Government refused. Article 22(5) was read with the statutory revocation power, including section 21 of the General Clauses Act, to mean that the constitutional opportunity to make an effective representation is not illusory when the Central Government can revoke the order. Refusal on a hyper-technical ground was considered unreasonable and a denial of effective consideration of the request for revocation. The concurrence accepted the factual entitlement to release, while noting reservations about equating the statutory revocation power with the constitutional safeguard.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention orders were vitiated because the detaining authority and the State Government did not forward copies of the detenus' representations to the Central Government for consideration, thereby denying the detenus their right under Article 22(5) read with the statutory revocation power.

Analysis: Article 22(5) requires the detaining authority to communicate the grounds of detention and afford the earliest opportunity to make a representation. The statutory scheme under the Act, read with section 21 of the General Clauses Act, shows that the detention order can be revoked by the State Government and, in appropriate cases, by the Central Government, so the right of representation is not illusory. Where the detenus specifically requested that copies of their representations be taken out and sent to the Central Government, refusal to do so was held to be unreasonable and a denial of the constitutional opportunity to seek revocation. The precedents relied on supported the view that the Central Government must be enabled to consider such representations where the statutory power of revocation exists.

Conclusion: The detention orders were invalid because the detenus were wrongly denied effective consideration of their representations by the Central Government; the issue was decided in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court's order was set aside, and the detention orders were quashed on this ground.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the detenu specifically requests that his representation be copied and forwarded to the Central Government, the detaining authority and the State Government cannot refuse on a hyper-technical ground if the statute confers revocation power on the Central Government and the detenu's constitutional opportunity to represent would otherwise be defeated.

Concurring Opinion: Punchhi, J. agreed that the detenus were entitled to release on the facts, but expressed reservation about treating section 11 as part of the constitutional guarantee under Article 22(5), stating that the statutory revocation power and the constitutional safeguard operate in distinct fields.

---