Unexplained delay in considering a detenu's representation breaches Article 22(5) and can vitiate preventive detention.

A detenu has an independent constitutional right under Article 22(5) to have his representation considered promptly, and the authority must explain any delay satisfactorily. No fixed time limit applies; the test is whether the delay is unreasonable on the facts. The text states that where the representation remained pending for an inordinate period, the delay in obtaining and forwarding information was inadequately explained, and disposal and communication were also unjustified, the constitutional safeguard was breached. On that basis, the detention order was vitiated and the detention was treated as invalid.

---

---

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

Analysis: The detenu has an independent constitutional right to have his representation considered with promptitude. The corresponding obligation on the appropriate authority is to deal with the representation as early as possible and to explain any delay satisfactorily. No fixed period is prescribed, but the test is whether the delay is unreasonable on the facts of the case. Here, the representation remained pending for an inordinate period, the delay in obtaining and forwarding the requisite information was inadequately explained, and the further delay in disposal and communication was also left without satisfactory justification. Such unexplained delay defeats the constitutional safeguard intended to protect personal liberty.

Conclusion: The delay in consideration and disposal of the representation was unreasonable and unsatisfactory, and the detention order was vitiated for breach of Article 22(5).

Final Conclusion: The detention was invalidated and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, unexplained or inadequately explained delay in considering a detenu's representation violates Article 22(5) and renders the detention illegal.

---