Article 22(5) requires early independent consideration of a detention representation before confirmation; later rejection cannot cure the defect.

Article 22(5) requires not only prompt communication of detention grounds but also that the detenu's representation be considered independently and at the earliest stage by the detaining authority before confirmation of detention. That obligation cannot be deferred until after the Advisory Board's opinion, because the Board is an additional safeguard and not a substitute for the Government's own decision on the representation. Where the record showed that the representation was sent to the Advisory Board and detention was confirmed on its report, with no material showing prior consideration by the detaining authority, the later rejection of the representation did not cure the defect. The detention was therefore held illegal and void for violation of Article 22(5).

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was invalid because the detenu's representation was not considered by the detaining authority before confirmation of detention under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) requires not only prompt communication of the grounds of detention but also that the detenu be afforded the earliest opportunity to make a representation. That safeguard necessarily carries with it an obligation on the detaining authority to consider the representation independently and as early as possible before confirming the detention. Such consideration cannot be postponed until after the Advisory Board's opinion is received, because the Advisory Board's role is an additional safeguard and is not a substitute for the Government's own decision on the representation. On the record, the representation was forwarded to the Advisory Board and the detention was confirmed on the basis of its report, while there was no material showing that the detaining authority considered the representation before confirmation. The later rejection of the representation could not cure the defect.

Conclusion: The detention was illegal and void for violation of Article 22(5), and the petition was allowed.

---