Preventive detention representation rights: a second plea needs separate consideration only when it raises fresh grounds or new material.

In preventive detention under COFEPOSA, Article 22(5) requires consideration of a detenu's representation, but the right does not extend to repeated representations resting on the same facts and grounds. A later representation calls for separate consideration only if it introduces fresh grounds, new material, or subsequent events requiring reconsideration. Where the second representation merely restates the earlier objections in different words and adds no new factual or legal basis, the Central Government is not obliged to pass a separate order on it; on that footing, the detention order is not vitiated for want of separate disposal.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in preventive detention proceedings under COFEPOSA, the detenu had a right to have a second representation separately considered and disposed of by the Central Government when it did not disclose any fresh grounds, fresh material, or subsequent event.

Analysis: The constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) requires consideration of a representation against detention, but the entitlement does not extend to repeated representations on the same facts and grounds. A further representation calls for independent consideration only where it introduces fresh grounds, new material, or subsequent events warranting reconsideration. On comparing the two representations, the Court found that the second merely restated the earlier grounds with different wording and did not add any new factual or legal basis. In those circumstances, there was no obligation on the Central Government to pass a separate order on the second representation.

Conclusion: The second representation did not require separate disposal, and the detention order was not vitiated on that ground.

---