Unexplained delay in deciding a detenu's representation can violate Article 22(5) and vitiate preventive detention.

Unexplained delay of 28 days in considering a detenu's representation against preventive detention breached Article 22(5) because the representation must be dealt with promptly to preserve its practical value. The absence of any cogent explanation for the delay was treated as a constitutional infirmity, and the detention order was held to be vitiated. The petition therefore succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether an unexplained delay of 28 days in considering and rejecting the detenu's representation violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution and vitiated the preventive detention order.

Analysis: The detenu's representation was received by the State Government and remained undecided for 28 days. The governing principle is that a representation against preventive detention must be considered by the appropriate Government as early as possible, because the right to make a representation under Article 22(5) would lose its practical value if the Government does not act with promptitude. No cogent explanation was offered for the delay. The authorities relied upon in the judgment recognise that unexplained delay in disposal of a detenu's representation infringes the constitutional mandate and invalidates detention.

Conclusion: The unexplained delay in considering the representation vitiated the detention order, and the petition was entitled to succeed.

---