Preventive detention safeguards require timely Board placement and forwarding of the detenu's representation during pending proceedings.

Preventive detention safeguards require the State to place the grounds of detention before the Advisory Board within the prescribed three-week period; forwarding the detention papers within time satisfied that requirement even though the Board meeting was later postponed. The detenu's representation, however, had to be dealt with consistently with Article 22(5) and the statutory scheme, and where Advisory Board proceedings were pending it should have been placed before the Board rather than rejected by the Government. Because the representation was not so forwarded and was instead rejected during pendency of Board proceedings, the Board's consideration and the confirmation of detention were vitiated, rendering the detention illegal and liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the grounds of detention were placed before the Advisory Board within the prescribed time under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2006; (ii) whether the detenu's representation was required to be forwarded to the Advisory Board and not rejected by the State Government while the Board's proceedings were pending; and (iii) whether the above infirmities rendered the detention illegal.

Issue (i): whether the grounds of detention were placed before the Advisory Board within the prescribed time under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2006.

Analysis: Section 11 obliges the State Government to place before the Advisory Board, within three weeks of detention, the grounds of detention and the detenu's representation, if any. The record showed that the detention order was passed on 01.08.2016 and the relevant papers were forwarded to the Advisory Board on 10.08.2016, well within three weeks. The postponement of the meeting from 22.08.2016 to 29.08.2016 did not mean that the matter had not been placed before the Board. The statutory requirement was satisfied.

Conclusion: The requirement of timely placement before the Advisory Board was complied with.

Issue (ii): whether the detenu's representation was required to be forwarded to the Advisory Board and not rejected by the State Government while the Board's proceedings were pending.

Analysis: The constitutional right under Article 22(5) and the scheme of the preventive detention law require the detenu's representation to be considered promptly and, where the Advisory Board proceedings are pending, to be forwarded to the Board. The representation dated 22.08.2016 was rejected by the State Government on 26.08.2016 instead of being placed before the Advisory Board. In the circumstances of the case, that course was held to be impermissible and contrary to the safeguards governing preventive detention.

Conclusion: The rejection of the representation by the State Government during pendency of the Advisory Board proceedings was invalid.

Issue (iii): whether the above infirmities rendered the detention illegal.

Analysis: Since the representation was not forwarded to the Advisory Board and was rejected by the Government while the Board was seized of the matter, the Advisory Board's consideration and the subsequent confirmation of detention stood vitiated. The defect affected the legality of the preventive detention order itself.

Conclusion: The detention was illegal and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The habeas corpus petition succeeded, the preventive detention order was quashed, and release from detention was directed forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, the detenu's representation must be dealt with in a manner consistent with Article 22 and the statutory scheme, and if Advisory Board proceedings are pending, the representation must be forwarded to the Board rather than rejected by the Government in a way that prejudices the Board's consideration; failure to do so vitiates the detention.

---