Detention representation must be considered before confirmation; later rejection cannot cure non-compliance with constitutional safeguards.

The detenu's right to make a representation under Article 22(5) carries a corresponding duty on the State Government to consider that representation immediately on receipt. That obligation is independent of the Advisory Board's opinion and cannot be deferred until after confirmation of detention. If the representation is already before the Government when it decides whether to confirm detention, it must be taken into account at that stage; a later rejection does not cure the earlier omission. On the stated facts, confirmation without prior consideration of the representation rendered the detention illegal and void, and release followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated because the State Government confirmed the detention without first considering the detenu's representation as required by Article 22(5) of the Constitution and section 7 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.

Analysis: The right of the detenu to make a representation carries with it a corresponding obligation on the State Government to consider that representation as soon as it is received. That duty is independent of the Advisory Board's opinion and cannot be postponed until after confirmation of detention. Where the representation is before the State Government at the time of confirmation, it must be taken into account before the Government decides whether to confirm and continue the detention. A later rejection of the representation does not cure the earlier failure to consider it at the required stage.

Conclusion: The detention was illegal and void because the State Government confirmed it without considering the representation first; the petitioner was entitled to release.

---