Preventive detention safeguards require prompt, independent consideration and communication of the detenu's representation; delay and non-communication vitiate detention.

In preventive detention matters, Article 22(5) requires the appropriate Government to consider the detenu's representation independently and with expedition, and it cannot defer that decision until the Advisory Board acts. Unexplained delay in deciding the representation therefore vitiates the detention. The constitutional safeguard is also incomplete unless the rejection is communicated promptly to the detenu; mere decision-making is not enough. Because the representation was delayed without valid justification and its rejection was not shown to have been duly communicated, the detention could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the unexplained delay in considering the detenu's representation vitiated the detention order under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and the National Security Act, 1980; (ii) Whether the failure to communicate the rejection of the representation to the detenu in a timely manner vitiated the detention order.

Issue (i): Whether the unexplained delay in considering the detenu's representation vitiated the detention order under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and the National Security Act, 1980.

Analysis: Article 22(5) requires that a detenu be afforded the earliest opportunity to make a representation, and the corresponding duty on the appropriate Government is to consider that representation with expedition, independently of the Advisory Board process. The statutory scheme of the National Security Act, 1980, particularly the provisions governing disclosure of grounds, reference to the Advisory Board, and action on its report, does not permit the Government to await the Board's opinion before deciding the representation. The delay in the present case was explained only by reference to the pending Advisory Board proceedings and was not supported by any valid justification for postponing decision on the representation.

Conclusion: The unexplained delay in deciding the representation rendered the detention invalid, in favour of the Appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the failure to communicate the rejection of the representation to the detenu in a timely manner vitiated the detention order.

Analysis: The constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) is not satisfied merely by taking a decision on the representation; the detenu must also be informed of that decision with promptness so that the right of representation remains meaningful. In the present case, there was no proof that the rejection of the representation by the Central Government or the State Government was ever duly communicated to the detenu before the writ proceedings, and the record did not establish receipt of the rejection. Such non-communication strikes at the core of the procedural protection guaranteed to a detenue.

Conclusion: The failure to communicate the rejection of the representation in a timely manner also vitiated the detention, in favour of the Appellant.

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention order could not be sustained because the constitutional and statutory safeguards governing consideration and communication of the representation were breached, and the consequential extensions fell with the original detention.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, the appropriate Government must decide a detenu's representation independently and with expedition, and the decision must be communicated promptly; unexplained delay or non-communication vitiates the detention.

---