Prompt consideration of preventive detention representations is a constitutional safeguard, and unexplained delay can invalidate continued detention.

The right of a detenu to make a representation against preventive detention orders is a constitutional and statutory safeguard under Article 22(5) and the detention law, and the representation must be considered by the appropriate Government with due expedition. The Court reiterated that the duty to act at the earliest opportunity applies to both the State Government and the Central Government. Unexplained or unsatisfactory delay in processing, forwarding, or deciding the representation defeats the constitutional mandate of prompt consideration and renders continued detention invalid on the facts noted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detenus' right to make a representation against the detention orders was protected by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the preventive detention statute. (ii) Whether the delayed disposal of the representations by the State Government and the Central Government vitiated the detention orders.

Issue (i): Whether the detenus' right to make a representation against the detention orders was protected by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the preventive detention statute.

Analysis: The right to be supplied the grounds of detention and to make a representation is not merely constitutional but is reinforced by the statute governing preventive detention. The expression "earliest opportunity" imposes a corresponding duty on the authorities to whom the representation is made to deal with it promptly. The representation lies to the appropriate Government, and the statutory scheme recognizing revocation powers in the State Government and the Central Government supports that conclusion.

Conclusion: The right to make a representation to the appropriate Government is a constitutional and statutory right.

Issue (ii): Whether the delayed disposal of the representations by the State Government and the Central Government vitiated the detention orders.

Analysis: The Court reiterated the settled principle that a preventive detention representation must be considered at the earliest, and any unexplained or unsatisfactory delay is fatal. On the facts, the representations remained pending at successive stages for substantial periods, including administrative movement, chronological queueing, and delay in forwarding comments to the Central Government. Such lethargic disposal defeated the constitutional mandate of prompt consideration and impaired the detenu's liberty.

Conclusion: The delays were unjustified and the detention orders were vitiated.

Final Conclusion: The judgment enforces strict compliance with the constitutional and statutory mandate of prompt consideration of preventive detention representations, and non-expeditious handling invalidates continued detention.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order is invalid if the representation against it is not considered with due expedition and any unexplained delay in its disposal violates the detenu's right under Article 22(5) and the corresponding statutory safeguard.

---