Preventive detention fails when a detenu's representation is not decided promptly and the delay remains unexplained.

Unexplained delay in disposing of a detenu's representation vitiates a preventive detention order because Article 22(5) requires prompt consideration as soon as may be. The representation was received, the sponsoring authority's remarks were obtained, but no explanation covered the period between receipt of those remarks and communication of rejection. The Supreme Court held that this unexplained and unjustified delay breached the constitutional requirement of expeditious review and rendered the detention unsustainable. The detention order was quashed and the detenu directed to be released forthwith, unless required in any other case.

---

---

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

Analysis: The representation was received by the detaining authority on 22 March 1999, remarks of the sponsoring authority were received on 9 April 1999, and the rejection was prepared only on 23 April 1999 but communicated on 28 April 1999. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India obliges the authority to consider a detenu's representation as soon as may be, and delay must be justified by permissible reasons or unavoidable causes. No explanation was offered for the delay after 9 April 1999 and up to 28 April 1999.

Conclusion: The delay was unexplained and fatal to the detention order; the order of detention was quashed and the appellant was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Final Conclusion: The detention was set aside for breach of the constitutional requirement of prompt consideration of the detenu's representation.

Ratio Decidendi: An unexplained and unjustified delay in disposing of a detenu's representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India vitiates the preventive detention order.

---