Preventive detention representation delay breaches Article 22(5) when unexplained, making continued detention constitutionally invalid.

Unexplained or inadequately explained delay in considering a detenu's representation under Article 22(5) violates the constitutional safeguard of prompt consideration of preventive detention representations. The authority must deal with such representation with due promptitude and reasonable dispatch; where delay at the level of the detaining authority, sponsoring authority, or final deciding authority is not satisfactorily accounted for, continued detention becomes constitutionally impermissible. On the stated facts, the delay in obtaining comments, verification, and final disposal was not satisfactorily explained, so the detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act was held invalid and the detenu was ordered to be released.

---

---

Issues: Whether unexplained and unsatisfactory delay in considering the detenu's representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India vitiated the detention order passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

Analysis: The right to make a representation against preventive detention is an independent constitutional safeguard. The authority must consider and dispose of such representation with due promptitude, reasonable dispatch, and a sense of urgency. Where the delay between receipt of the representation and its consideration is unreasonably long and the explanation offered is unsatisfactory, the continued detention becomes constitutionally impermissible. On the facts, the delay at the level of the detaining authority, the sponsoring authority, and the Additional Chief Secretary remained unexplained or inadequately explained, including the time taken for verification, obtaining parawise comments, and final disposal of the representation.

Conclusion: The delay in dealing with the representation breached Article 22(5) and rendered the detention order invalid.

Final Conclusion: The detention was quashed and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Ratio Decidendi: Unexplained or unsatisfactorily explained delay in considering a detenu's representation under Article 22(5) vitiates preventive detention and makes continued detention illegal.

---