Preventive detention and representation delay: unexplained delay in considering the detenu's plea invalidated the detention.

A Letters Patent Appeal was held maintainable against a Single Judge's order in a writ petition challenging preventive detention because proceedings under Article 226 were treated as an exercise of the High Court's original constitutional jurisdiction. The detention was then found vitiated because the detenu's representation was not dealt with expeditiously and the delay remained unexplained. The Court held that the right to make a representation under Article 22(5) includes the right to prompt consideration, and avoidable administrative delay without justification invalidates continued detention. The appeal succeeded and release was directed unless the detenu was required in another case.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a Letters Patent Appeal lay against the order of a Single Judge in a writ petition challenging preventive detention; (ii) whether unexplained delay in dealing with the detenu's representation vitiated the detention under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether a Letters Patent Appeal lay against the order of a Single Judge in a writ petition challenging preventive detention.

Analysis: A petition under Article 226 seeking relief against detention was treated as an exercise of the High Court's original constitutional jurisdiction and not as criminal jurisdiction merely because it concerned release from detention. The classification of such proceedings as a criminal writ was held not determinative, and the contrary view based on an earlier short order was not accepted. The appellate jurisdiction available under the charter of the High Court was therefore held to extend to the judgment under challenge.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection to maintainability was rejected; the appeal was held maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether unexplained delay in dealing with the detenu's representation vitiated the detention under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The governing principle is that the right to make a representation against preventive detention carries with it the right to its expeditious consideration, and any unexplained delay may render continued detention illegal. On the facts, the representation moved through the Jail Superintendent and the sponsoring authority suffered several unexplained intervals, and the Central Government failed to provide an adequate explanation for the total delay. The delay was found to be avoidable and unsupported by administrative justification.

Conclusion: The detention was held to be vitiated by unexplained delay in considering the representation and the detention order could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith, unless required in any other case, because the preventive detention could not continue in the face of unexplained delay in disposal of the representation.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, the detaining authority must consider the detenu's representation with expedition and any unexplained delay in doing so violates Article 22(5) and invalidates the detention.

---