Detention representation must be considered without unexplained delay; affidavit by an uninvolved officer carries little weight.

A detention order is not supported by a counter-affidavit sworn by an officer who had no personal connection with the detention proceedings, no role in processing the file, and no personal knowledge of the matter; such an affidavit carries little weight. The detenu also has an independent constitutional right under Article 22(5) to have his representation considered with reasonable dispatch, and unexplained delay in that process breaches the constitutional safeguard. On the facts stated, the delay was not adequately explained, so the detention was vitiated and could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a detention order can be sustained when the counter-affidavit is sworn by an officer who had no personal connection with the detention proceedings or personal knowledge of the file; and (ii) whether unexplained delay in considering the detenu's representation vitiates the detention for breach of constitutional safeguards.

Issue (i): whether a detention order can be sustained when the counter-affidavit is sworn by an officer who had no personal connection with the detention proceedings or personal knowledge of the file.

Analysis: A counter-affidavit in detention matters should ordinarily be filed by the detaining authority, but that is not an inflexible rule. Where there is no allegation of mala fides, bias, or abuse of power, an affidavit may be sworn by a responsible officer who personally dealt with the matter or was duly authorised. An affidavit by an officer who had no connection with the order, did not process the file, and had no personal knowledge of the proceedings is an unsatisfactory proxy and deserves little weight.

Conclusion: The affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police was not worth consideration.

Issue (ii): whether unexplained delay in considering the detenu's representation vitiates the detention for breach of constitutional safeguards.

Analysis: The detenu has an independent constitutional right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to have his representation considered with reasonable dispatch. The authority dealing with the representation must act expeditiously, and any unexplained delay defeats the constitutional mandate. On the facts, there was an unexplained delay at the stage of processing the representation, and the explanation placed on record did not account for the period of inaction.

Conclusion: The unexplained delay amounted to breach of the constitutional obligation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and vitiated the detention.

Final Conclusion: The detention could not be sustained, and the detenu was entitled to immediate release.

Ratio Decidendi: In detention matters, a representation must be considered with reasonable dispatch under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, and unexplained delay in that process vitiates the detention; an affidavit by an officer with no personal connection to the proceedings carries no weight.

---