Prompt consideration of detenus' representations under Article 22(5) is independent of the Advisory Board process and delay can invalidate detention.

Article 22(5) requires the State Government to consider a detenu's representation with promptitude, and that duty remains independent of the Advisory Board process. Where the representations were received and rejected after substantial delay, and the State offered no explanation for the delay in its counter affidavit, the delay was treated as excessive and inconsistent with the constitutional obligation of expeditious consideration. The continued preventive detention was therefore held illegal, and the detenus were ordered to be released forthwith.

---

---

Issues: Whether unexplained delay by the State Government in considering the detenus' representations under Article 22(5) rendered their continued detention illegal.

Analysis: The constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) requires the State Government to consider a detenu's representation as expeditiously as possible. The existence of an Advisory Board does not relieve the Government of that independent obligation. On the facts, each representation was received and rejected after a substantial delay, and no explanation for the delay was offered in the counter affidavit. In the context of detention without trial under preventive detention law, such delay was held to be excessive and inconsistent with the constitutional duty of prompt consideration.

Conclusion: The unexplained delay violated Article 22(5), and the continued detention of the petitioners was illegal. The petitions were allowed and the petitioners were directed to be released forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi: A detenu's representation must be considered by the State Government with promptitude, independently of the Advisory Board process, and unexplained delay in doing so invalidates the continued detention.

---