Prompt consideration of detenue representation is essential; unexplained delay can vitiate preventive detention.

Unexplained delay in dealing with a detenue's representation was held to breach Article 22(5) because representations against preventive detention must be considered with promptitude. The sponsoring authority's comments were forwarded after nearly 28 days, and the explanation of postal delay was rejected as it was not pleaded in the counter and was unsupported by affidavit or adequate particulars. The inordinate, unexplained delay vitiated the detention order, and the writ petition was allowed with directions for release unless required in another case.

---

---

Issues: Whether the unexplained delay in dealing with the detenue's representation violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and vitiated the preventive detention order.

Analysis: The representation was received and processed only after the sponsoring authority's comments were called for, but the comments were forwarded after an unexplained delay of nearly 28 days. The explanation that the delay was due to postal transmission was not accepted because it was not pleaded in the counter, was unsupported by affidavit from the sponsoring authority, and did not satisfactorily account for the delay. The governing principle is that representations against detention must be considered with promptitude and any inordinate, unexplained delay can invalidate the detention.

Conclusion: The delay was unexplained and unreasonable, and the detention order was vitiated for breach of Article 22(5). The writ petition was allowed and the detenue was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

---