Article 22(5) delay in processing a detenu's representation can make continued detention illegal without voiding the original detention order.

Unexplained delay in forwarding a detenu's representation can breach Article 22(5) where the jail authority fails to transmit it promptly; the original detention order remains valid, but continued detention becomes illegal. The text also notes that independent consideration by the detaining authority was not disproved on the materials, because the representation was processed through officers and placed before the authority for prompt decision. The detention order was thus upheld, while further custody was treated as impermissible and release was directed if the detenu was not otherwise required.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether unexplained delay in forwarding and disposing of the detenu's representation violated Article 22(5) and affected the detention; (ii) Whether the detention was vitiated on the ground that the detaining authority did not independently consider the representation.

Issue (i): Whether unexplained delay in forwarding and disposing of the detenu's representation violated Article 22(5) and affected the detention.

Analysis: Article 22(5) requires the representation to be considered as early as possible and dealt with continuously until a final decision is reached and communicated. The Court found that the delay after the representation reached the detaining and sponsoring authorities was reasonably explained, but the interval between the detenu's handing over the representation to the jail authority and its transmission onward remained wholly unexplained. That inaction by the jail authority breached the constitutional imperative. The Court further held that such delay does not invalidate the original detention order, but renders the continued detention illegal.

Conclusion: The continued detention was illegal on account of unexplained delay, but the detention order itself remained valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the detention was vitiated on the ground that the detaining authority did not independently consider the representation.

Analysis: The point had not been raised in the writ petition or before the High Court, but the Court nevertheless examined it. The affidavit of the detaining authority showed that the representation was processed through the concerned officers and then placed before her for decision. The subordinate officers had not expressed any opinion, and the entire process was completed promptly. On that material, no basis existed to infer absence of independent consideration by the detaining authority.

Conclusion: The challenge on this ground was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was upheld, but the detenu's further custody was held impermissible and he was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Ratio Decidendi: Unexplained delay in processing a detenu's representation violates Article 22(5) and vitiates continued detention, though it does not by itself nullify the original order of detention.

---