Preventive detention representation must be considered by the State before Advisory Board reference, or detention becomes invalid.

Article 22(5) confers a substantive right not only to make a representation against preventive detention but also to have that representation considered promptly by the authority to whom it is addressed. The existence of an Advisory Board does not postpone or replace the State Government's duty to examine the representation before forwarding it. Because the constitutional safeguard is mandatory and independent of the Advisory Board process, failure by the State Government to consider the representation vitiates the detention and confirmation as ultra vires, entitling the detenu to release.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, the State Government was obliged to consider the detenu's representation before forwarding it to the Advisory Board, and whether failure to do so rendered the detention illegal.

Analysis: Article 22(5) guarantees not only the right to receive grounds of detention and to make a representation, but also the correlative right to have that representation properly and expeditiously considered by the authority to whom it is made. The existence of an Advisory Board under the Act does not displace that obligation. The constitutional safeguard is independent of the period of detention and independent of the reference to the Advisory Board. The right of representation would be illusory if the State Government could defer consideration until the Advisory Board stage. Since the procedural requirements under Article 22 are mandatory, non-consideration of the representation by the State Government vitiates the detention.

Conclusion: The State Government was bound to consider the detenu's representation before forwarding it to the Advisory Board, and failure to do so rendered the detention order and confirmation invalid and ultra vires; the petitioners were entitled to release.

---