Unexplained delay in considering a detenu's representation violates Article 22(5) and vitiates preventive detention.

In preventive detention matters, a detenu's representation must be considered with promptitude and watchful care because delay defeats the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5). An unexplained and inordinate delay of about 22 days in forwarding the representation, with no satisfactory explanation from the jail and prison authorities, was treated as gross negligence that rendered the safeguard ineffective and vitiated the detention. The detention order was therefore liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the detenu's representation violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution and vitiated the detention order.

Analysis: The representation made by the detenu was left unattended for about 22 days in the office of the jail authorities and prison administration before it reached the State Government, and no satisfactory explanation was offered for this lapse. In preventive detention matters, a representation must be dealt with with watchful care and reasonable promptitude, since delay defeats the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5). The unexplained and unwarranted delay was treated as gross negligence and was held to have rendered the constitutional protection ineffective.

Conclusion: The unexplained delay violated Article 22(5) and the detention was liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention cases, an unexplained and inordinate delay in dealing with the detenu's representation amounts to a violation of Article 22(5) and vitiates the detention.

---