Preventive detention invalidated for unexplained delay in considering a detenu's representation under Article 22(5).

Preventive detention is invalid where the State fails to consider and dispose of the detenu's representation under Article 22(5) promptly and independently. The Government's duty to examine the representation cannot be deferred until the Advisory Board has reported, because that constitutional safeguard operates separately from the statutory board process. Here, the representation remained unattended for an inordinate period and the explanation for the delay was found wholly inadequate. The unexplained delay in dealing with a matter affecting personal liberty vitiated the detention order and rendered the continued detention constitutionally impermissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the continued preventive detention of the appellant was vitiated by the State Government's unexplained delay in considering and disposing of the representation made under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, independent of the reference to and report of the Advisory Board.

Analysis: The right to make a representation against detention carries with it the corresponding duty of the appropriate Government to consider and dispose of that representation as expeditiously as possible. That obligation is independent of the statutory requirement of placing the case before the Advisory Board, and the Government cannot postpone consideration of the detenu's representation until the Board has reported. On the facts, the representation addressed to the Chief Minister remained unattended for an inordinate period, and the explanation offered for the delay was found wholly inadequate. The delay occurred in dealing with a constitutional safeguard affecting personal liberty and was not justified by reference to the Chief Minister's other engagements.

Conclusion: The continued detention was constitutionally impermissible and invalid; the delay in considering the representation vitiated the detention order, in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The detention order could not stand because the State failed to discharge its independent constitutional obligation to consider the detenu's representation promptly and without waiting for the Advisory Board's opinion.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, the appropriate Government must consider and dispose of the detenu's representation independently and with expedition; unexplained delay in doing so violates Article 22(5) and invalidates the detention.

---