Preventive detention and prompt representation review under Article 22(5) are mandatory; unexplained delay vitiates detention.

An earlier Article 226 challenge did not bar a later Article 32 petition on res judicata grounds, so the preliminary objection failed. In preventive detention matters, Article 22(5) requires the detenu's representation to be considered promptly and independently by the appropriate Government, and that duty is not displaced by reference to an Advisory Board. On the facts stated, the State gave no explanation for the inordinate delay in dealing with the representation, so the detention could not be sustained and was held illegal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the dismissal of an earlier petition under Article 226 of the Constitution barred the present petition under Article 32 on the ground of res judicata; (ii) Whether the detenu's representation against preventive detention was considered with the promptitude required by Article 22(5) of the Constitution, and whether unexplained delay rendered the detention illegal.

Issue (i): Whether the dismissal of an earlier petition under Article 226 of the Constitution barred the present petition under Article 32 on the ground of res judicata.

Analysis: The petitioner's earlier challenge before the High Court did not operate as res judicata in the subsequent petition under Article 32. A prior dismissal of a habeas corpus-type challenge to detention is not treated as a judgment barring examination on merits in the Supreme Court. The objection was therefore rejected.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection based on res judicata failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the detenu's representation against preventive detention was considered with the promptitude required by Article 22(5) of the Constitution, and whether unexplained delay rendered the detention illegal.

Analysis: Article 22(5) requires that the detenu be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation and that the representation be considered expeditiously and independently by the appropriate Government. The existence of an Advisory Board does not suspend that constitutional obligation. On the facts stated in the petition, the representation had been made and was said to have been rejected only after an inordinate lapse of time, while the State filed no counter-affidavit explaining the delay or showing compliance with the mandatory requirements. In these circumstances, the detention could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The detention was illegal for failure to dispose of the representation expeditiously.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to preventive detention succeeded, the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) was held to have been breached, and the detention order could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, the appropriate Government must consider the detenu's representation promptly and independently of the Advisory Board, and unexplained delay in doing so vitiates the detention.

---