Expeditious consideration of detention representations is mandatory; unexplained delay can vitiate continued preventive detention.

Article 22(5) requires a detenu's representation to be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible, and any delay must be satisfactorily explained by permissible reasons or unavoidable causes. The Supreme Court found the delay up to 9.2.1998 explained, but no adequate explanation for the further delay from 9.2.1998 to 14.2.1998 while the matter remained before the Minister. Absence of the Minister from headquarters or on tour was held insufficient where personal liberty was at stake, so the unexplained delay vitiated the preventive detention and the detention order could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether unexplained delay in considering the detenu's representation vitiated the preventive detention.

Analysis: The constitutional requirement under Article 22(5) is that a detenu's representation must be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible. No fixed time-limit is prescribed, but the authority must explain any delay and show that it was occasioned by permissible reasons or unavoidable causes. On the facts, the movement of the file up to 9.2.1998 was explained, but no satisfactory explanation was offered for the further delay from 9.2.1998 to 14.2.1998 when the matter remained before the Minister. Mere absence of the Minister at headquarters or on tour was held insufficient where the liberty of the citizen was involved.

Conclusion: The unexplained delay vitiated the continued detention, and the detention order could not be sustained.

---