Detention order invalidated for delay in representation decision. Extensions quashed, appeal allowed.

The order of detention was invalidated due to the unexplained delay in deciding the representation and the failure to timely communicate the rejection of the representation. As a result, the extensions of the order of detention were quashed. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the order of detention along with its extensions were annulled. Any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Delay in considering the representation.
2. Failure to communicate the decision on the representation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

D.1 Delay in considering the representation

31. The State Government allegedly rejected the Appellant's representation dated 18 May 2021 on 15 July 2021, almost two months later. The State Government's order rejecting the representation has not been filed before this Court.

32. The issue is whether the procedural rights of the detenu under Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 8 of the NSA were sufficiently protected.

33. Section 8 of the NSA requires the disclosure and communication of the grounds of detention and the affording of an opportunity to the detenu to make a representation against such an order to the appropriate government, distinct from the reference to the Advisory Board. In Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal, a Constitution Bench emphasized the expeditious consideration of the representation by the appropriate government.

34. A Constitution Bench in Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal distinguished between the right of the detenu to have their representation considered by the appropriate government and the power of the Advisory Board.

35. In Frances Coralie Mullin v. W.C. Khambra, the Court reiterated the principles that the detaining authority must provide the detenu a very early opportunity to make a representation and consider it as soon as possible.

36. The distinction between the consideration of a representation by the appropriate government and by the Advisory Board is well settled.

37. In Harish Pahwa v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court held that a representation by a detenu must be considered expeditiously and can be kept pending only when seeking assistance is absolutely necessary.

38. In Mohinuddin v. District Magistrate, Beed, the Court held that the unexplained and unduly long delay in the disposal of the representation by the State Government made the further detention of the Appellant illegal.

39. In Ankit Ashok Jalan v. Union of India, the Court noted the qualitative difference between the consideration of a representation by the appropriate government and by the Advisory Board.

40. The principle of making simultaneous representations by the detenu to the State and Central Governments was enunciated in Haji Mohd. Akhlaq v. District Magistrate.

41. The Appellant submitted a representation on 18 May 2021, which was communicated to the State and Central Governments on 20 May 2021. The Central Government sought comments from the detaining authority on 2 June 2021, which were received on 11 June 2021. The Central Government rejected the representation on 24 June 2021, allegedly communicated by a wireless message on 28 June 2021.

42. The State Government rejected the representation on 15 July 2021, but there is no proof of this rejection or its communication to the detenu.

43. There is no reasonable basis for the State Government's delay in considering the representation until after the Advisory Board's report on 15 June 2021.

44. The State Government's delay in disposing of the representation and the Central and State Governments' delay in communicating such rejection strike at the heart of the procedural rights and guarantees granted to the detenu.

D.2 Failure to communicate decision on the representation

47. The Respondent could not furnish proof of the Appellant's receipt of the Central Government's rejection of representation dated 24 June 2021. The wireless message dated 28 June 2021 directed the SP to serve a copy meant for the detenu, but there is no material indicating that the rejection was communicated to the detenu.

48. The State Government allegedly rejected the representation on 15 July 2021, but there is no proof of the Appellant having knowledge of this rejection before filing the writ petition.

49. Article 22(4) guarantees a right to make a representation to the detenu, creating a corresponding duty on the State machinery to render this right meaningful.

50. This Court has included delays in communication of rejection of representation as part of the infraction on the detenu's constitutional right under Article 22(4).

51. In Madan Lal Anand v. Union of India, the Court considered an explanation for a two-day delay in communicating a rejection of representation to the detenu in determining laches or negligence on the part of the detaining authority.

52. In Union of India v. Saleena, the Court considered whether non-communication of the order rejecting the representation would invalidate the order of detention. In the present case, the outcome of the representation was not communicated to the Appellant.

53. The decision in Saleena does not apply here as the outcome of the representation was not communicated to the Appellant.

54. The failure to communicate the rejection of the representation in a time-bound manner is sufficient to vitiate the order of detention.

E. Conclusion

55. The order of detention is invalidated on two grounds: the unexplained delay in deciding the representation and the failure to communicate the rejection of the representation in a timely manner. The extensions of the order of detention are also quashed.

56. The appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The order of detention and its extensions are quashed.

57. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

---