Preventive detention representation must be decided promptly; unexplained delay can vitiate the detention order.

Where the governing preventive detention statute requires a detenu's representation to be made to the appropriate Government, consideration by that Government satisfies the constitutional safeguard, and the detaining authority's failure to separately decide the representation does not by itself invalidate the detention. However, an inordinate and unexplained delay in disposing of the representation breaches the requirement of prompt consideration and renders the detention unlawful. The article states that a 28-day delay, inadequately explained across the administrative chain, vitiated the detention order and led to it being quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the failure of the detaining authority to consider the detenu's representation vitiated the detention order when the statute required the representation to be made to the appropriate Government; (ii) whether an unexplained delay of 28 days in disposing of the representation vitiated the detention order.

Issue (i): whether the failure of the detaining authority to consider the detenu's representation vitiated the detention order when the statute required the representation to be made to the appropriate Government.

Analysis: The detention was made by the District Magistrate under the power delegated by the State Government. While Article 22(5) embodies the constitutional obligation to afford the earliest opportunity to make a representation, Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 specifically requires the detenu to be enabled to make a representation to the appropriate Government. In that statutory scheme, consideration by the appropriate Government satisfies the obligation, and the fact that the District Magistrate did not finally decide the representation did not by itself invalidate the detention order. The Chief Minister had considered the representation after calling for the detaining authority's remarks.

Conclusion: The omission of the detaining authority to separately decide the representation did not vitiate the detention order.

Issue (ii): whether an unexplained delay of 28 days in disposing of the representation vitiated the detention order.

Analysis: The representation remained pending through successive stages in the administration for 28 days, and the delay was not satisfactorily explained. The delay occurred at multiple levels, including the detaining authority and the State Government, and the file movement showed no adequate justification for the time taken. In preventive detention matters, prompt consideration of a representation is essential, and an inordinate unexplained delay infringes the safeguard against arbitrary detention.

Conclusion: The unexplained delay was inordinate and vitiated the detention order.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was quashed because the representation was not dealt with with the promptitude required in a preventive detention case.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing statute requires a representation to be made to the appropriate Government, consideration by that Government satisfies the constitutional safeguard, but an inordinate and unexplained delay in disposing of the representation renders the detention unlawful.

---