Preventive detention representation must be considered promptly; unexplained delay breaches Article 22(5) and vitiates detention.

The constitutional right to make a representation against preventive detention requires the Government to consider it with due promptitude and without avoidable delay. No fixed time-limit applies; the issue depends on the facts, and delay may be excused only if satisfactorily explained for the relevant period. On the facts stated, the explanation did not cover the material delay and the representation was not dealt with as expeditiously as required, so Article 22(5) was breached and the detention was vitiated.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State Government's delay in considering the detenu's representation violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution and rendered the detention order invalid.

Analysis: The right to make a representation against preventive detention must be matched by a duty on the appropriate Government to consider that representation with due promptitude and without avoidable delay. No hard and fast time-limit can be fixed, but the question depends on the facts of each case. Delay may be excused if satisfactorily explained, but where the explanation does not cover the relevant period and the representation is not dealt with as expeditiously as possible, the constitutional safeguard is breached. On the facts, the delay between receipt of the representation and its consideration was not satisfactorily explained, and the circumstances relied upon did not justify the lapse.

Conclusion: The delay infringed Article 22(5) and vitiated the detention.

---