Preventive detention and Article 22(5): unexplained delay in considering representations can invalidate detention, and technical objections cannot block habeas corpus relief.

Article 22(5) requires representations against preventive detention to be considered promptly and with urgency; unexplained delay, slackness, or callousness in disposal breaches the constitutional safeguard and makes continued detention impermissible. On the stated facts, the Central Government's delay in rejecting the detenus' representations was held unjustified, and the detention orders were quashed. Habeas corpus proceedings protecting personal liberty are not to be defeated by technical objections about the prayer or timing of the petition; such objections were rejected where the detention had already become unlawful.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay by the Central Government in considering and rejecting the detenus' representations violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and vitiated the detention orders under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974; (ii) whether technical objections as to the prayer or timing of the habeas corpus petition could defeat relief in proceedings involving personal liberty.

Issue (i): Whether the delay by the Central Government in considering and rejecting the detenus' representations violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and vitiated the detention orders under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

Analysis: The constitutional mandate under Article 22(5) requires representations against preventive detention to be considered expeditiously and with urgency. The Court applied settled precedent that there is no fixed statutory time-limit, but unexplained delay, supine indifference, slackness, or callousness in disposal of the representation breaches the constitutional safeguard and renders continued detention impermissible. On the admitted facts, the representation remained pending for an extended period and the delay was not satisfactorily explained.

Conclusion: The delay was held to be unjustified and the detention orders were quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether technical objections as to the prayer or timing of the habeas corpus petition could defeat relief in proceedings involving personal liberty.

Analysis: Habeas corpus is a constitutional remedy protecting personal liberty and is not to be defeated by overtechnical objections. The Court treated such proceedings as requiring liberal and effective enforcement of liberty rather than procedural niceties, especially where the detention itself had become unlawful because of the unexplained delay in dealing with the representations.

Conclusion: The technical objections were rejected and did not bar relief.

Final Conclusion: The detention orders were invalidated, the appeals succeeded, and the detenus were directed to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, representations must be considered with strict expedition under Article 22(5), and unexplained delay vitiates continued detention; technical objections cannot be allowed to defeat a habeas corpus remedy protecting personal liberty.

---