Detenu representation delays affect continued detention, but do not void the original COFEPOSA detention order ab initio.

A detenu's representation must receive meaningful and prompt consideration by every authority competent to revoke detention under Article 22(5), and unreasonable delay or non-consideration by the Central Government infringes that safeguard. The subsequent breach, however, does not render the original detention order under COFEPOSA void ab initio, because that order rests on the detaining authority's satisfaction on the material before it. The legal effect of the infraction is confined to continued detention becoming unlawful, while the initial detention order remains valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-consideration or belated consideration of the detenu's representation to the Central Government vitiates the initial detention order under the COFEPOSA Act, or only the continued detention.

Analysis: The right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India includes a meaningful and expeditious consideration of the detenu's representation by every authority competent to revoke the detention. A failure by the Central Government to consider the representation within a reasonable time infringes that constitutional safeguard. However, the detention order under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 is founded on the detaining authority's satisfaction on the material before it, and a subsequent breach in considering the representation does not render that initial order void ab initio. The consequence of such infraction is that continued detention becomes illegal, while the original order itself remains valid. The same distinction is reinforced by the statutory scheme under Section 11 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 and the earlier decisions relied upon.

Conclusion: The non-consideration of the representation did not vitiate the initial detention order, though it could affect further detention.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was upheld, and the authorities were held free to proceed under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976.

Ratio Decidendi: Subsequent infringement of the detenu's constitutional right to representation under Article 22(5) affects the legality of continued detention, but does not make the original detention order under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act void ab initio.

---