Preventive detention representations must be considered promptly; unexplained delay can vitiate detention and justify release.

Section 11 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 gives the Central Government supervisory power to revoke or modify a detention order, and that power carries an implied duty to consider a detenu's representation with reasonable expedition. Unexplained inordinate delay, negligence, callous inaction, or avoidable red-tapism in dealing with such a representation defeats the safeguard and can vitiate the detention. The text notes that a representation repeating earlier grounds still requires consideration, and that prolonged failure to act without satisfactory explanation renders the detention unsustainable and may lead to quashing of the order and release of the detenu.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Central Government's failure to consider expeditiously, or at all, the detenu's representation for revocation of detention under Section 11 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 vitiated the detention and required release.

Analysis: Section 11 confers a supervisory power on the Central Government to revoke or modify a detention order, and that power carries an implied duty to consider any representation made by the detenu with reasonable expedition. The Court held that the safeguard would lose efficacy if the representation were ignored or left unattended through negligence, callous inaction, avoidable red-tapism, or undue delay. On the facts, the detenu's request for revocation was never considered for about four months, and no satisfactory explanation was offered. The Court rejected the contention that no duty arose merely because the representation repeated earlier grounds, and followed the earlier rulings that the power to revoke necessarily includes a duty to consider the representation.

Conclusion: The unexplained delay and inaction in dealing with the detenu's representation under Section 11 violated the constitutional and statutory requirement of prompt consideration, rendering the detention unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the detention order was quashed, and the detenu was directed to be released.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers on the Central Government a supervisory power to revoke or modify preventive detention, that power is coupled with a to consider the detenu's representation with reasonable expedition, and unexplained inordinate delay in doing so vitiates the detention.

---