Preventive detention and prompt communication of representation decisions are essential safeguards; failure vitiates continued detention.

Article 22(5) requires not only an opportunity to make a representation against preventive detention but also prompt disposal and communication of the decision to the detenu. Where the Central Government had rejected the detainee's representation under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, but that rejection was not communicated at the earliest opportunity, the constitutional safeguard was breached and continued detention was vitiated in law, rendering the detention order liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the continued detention was vitiated because the result of the detainee's representation, though rejected by the Central Government, was not communicated to him at the earliest opportunity.

Analysis: The right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India includes not only the right to make a representation at the earliest opportunity but also the corresponding obligation of the State to dispose of it with utmost expedition and communicate the result without delay. The detention order was under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The record showed that the representation had been rejected by the Central Government, yet no communication of that rejection had reached the detenu. In preventive detention matters, such failure to communicate the decision infringes the constitutional safeguard and vitiates continued detention.

Conclusion: The continued detention was vitiated in law and the detention order was liable to be quashed.

---