Preventive detention representation delay is not unexplained when sponsoring authority comments are properly sought and processed.

In preventive detention matters, Article 22(5) requires representations to be considered with utmost expedition, and Article 21 calls for strict scrutiny of any deprivation of liberty. Seeking comments from the sponsoring authority while examining a representation is permissible where they assist on factual issues, and does not by itself amount to unexplained delay. On the facts, the representation was processed through the normal channel, the comments were obtained, and the time taken was not shown to be inordinate or unjustified; the detention order therefore was not invalidated on delay grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated for unexplained delay in disposal of the detenu's representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, on the ground that the sponsoring authority's comments were sought before deciding the representation.

Analysis: Article 22(5) requires the representation against preventive detention to be considered with utmost expedition, and Article 21 reinforces strict judicial vigilance over deprivation of personal liberty. In preventive detention matters, procedural safeguards must be complied with strictly, but the authority considering the representation is entitled to obtain comments from the sponsoring authority where those comments are useful for dealing with factual aspects of the representation. Seeking such remarks is not, by itself, an unwarranted exercise or a basis to infer unexplained delay. On the facts, the representation was processed through the normal channel and was rejected after receipt of the sponsoring authority's comments; the time taken was not shown to be inordinate or unjustified.

Conclusion: The detention order was not invalidated by delay in disposal of the representation, and the High Court's quashing of the detention was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention cases, calling for remarks from the sponsoring authority while considering a representation is permissible and does not amount to unexplained delay unless the delay is inordinate and unjustified on the facts.

---