Prompt consideration of a detenu's representation is mandatory; unexplained delay can vitiate preventive detention.

Continued detention is vitiated where the detaining or sponsoring authority fails to consider and communicate a detenu's representation with promptitude under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The court treated unexplained and avoidable delay as constitutionally fatal, noting that delay is assessed by the adequacy of the explanation and by whether the representation was handled continuously and expeditiously. On the facts, the representation remained pending for a substantial period, the reliance on intervening holidays was rejected, and inconsistencies in the affidavits weakened the explanation for delayed communication. The detention order was therefore vitiated for violation of Article 22(5).

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was liable to be quashed for inordinate and unexplained delay in considering and communicating the detenu's representation, thereby violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) requires the detaining and sponsoring authorities to consider a detenu's representation with promptitude and without avoidable delay. Delay is not judged merely by length of time, but by whether it is satisfactorily explained and whether the matter was dealt with continuously and expeditiously. On the facts, the representation remained pending for a substantial period, the explanations relied upon were not acceptable, and the intervening holidays did not justify the delay. The discrepancies in the affidavits also undermined the explanation for the delayed communication of the decision.

Conclusion: The delay was unreasonable and inadequately explained, and the continued detention was held to be in violation of Article 22(5); the detention order was vitiated.

---