Preventive detention representation must be decided promptly and independently; delay pending Advisory Board review can vitiate detention.

A detaining authority under the COFEPOSA Act must independently and expeditiously consider a detenu's representation and cannot defer decision until the Advisory Board's opinion is received. Relying on Article 22(5) and the Supreme Court's ruling in Ankit Ashok Jalan, the Kerala High Court noted that prompt disposal of the representation is a constitutional safeguard in preventive detention matters. Unexplained inaction or undue delay in dealing with the representation violates that safeguard and renders continued detention illegal, invalid and unconstitutional, leading to quashing of the detention and confirmation orders.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detaining authority was bound to consider the detenu's representation independently and within a reasonable time even though the case was pending before the Advisory Board, and whether the delay in doing so rendered the continued detention illegal and unconstitutional.

Analysis: The detention was made under the COFEPOSA Act and the representation was kept pending solely because the Advisory Board's opinion was awaited. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Ankit Ashok Jalan, the Court held that a specially empowered detaining authority cannot defer consideration of a representation until the Advisory Board reports. The right under Article 22(5) requires expeditious consideration and disposal of the representation with promptitude, and unexplained inaction or undue delay violates the constitutional safeguard against preventive detention.

Conclusion: The delay in considering the representation was unjustified, the continued detention was illegal, invalid and unconstitutional, and the detention and confirmation orders were liable to be quashed in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded because the detenu's constitutional right to timely consideration of representation was infringed, resulting in the setting aside of the detention and confirmation orders and release of the detenu forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi: A detaining authority must independently and expeditiously consider a representation against preventive detention without waiting for the Advisory Board's report, and undue delay in doing so vitiates the detention.

---