Preventive detention representation must be properly considered; direct communication is unnecessary, and continued detention needs fresh review after delay.

In preventive detention matters, Article 22(5) is satisfied where the detenu's representation receives real and proper consideration by the competent authority and the record shows application of mind; direct communication of the rejection order by that authority, or a speaking order, is not mandatory. The detention was therefore not invalidated merely because communication came through a subordinate officer. Where a detention order has been quashed and a substantial time has passed, continued custody cannot be assumed automatically; the detaining authority must reconsider whether further detention remains desirable in light of the elapsed period and current circumstances. The release order was set aside and fresh consideration of continued detention was directed within the time fixed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-communication of the competent authority's order rejecting the detenu's representation, or communication by a subordinate officer, vitiated the detention for breach of Article 22(5) and the governing statutory safeguards; (ii) whether, after the detention order was quashed and a substantial period had elapsed, the detenu should be required to undergo the remaining period of detention or the competent authority should first reconsider the desirability of further detention.

Issue (i): Whether non-communication of the competent authority's order rejecting the detenu's representation, or communication by a subordinate officer, vitiated the detention for breach of Article 22(5) and the governing statutory safeguards.

Analysis: The governing principle is that the detenu's representation must receive real and proper consideration, with application of mind by the competent authority, but the law does not require a speaking order or personal communication by that authority. The Court held that the constitutional requirement is satisfied if the file shows that the relevant materials, comments, and representation were actually considered and the subjective satisfaction is discernible. The Court rejected the view that absence of direct communication of the rejection order by the competent authority, by itself, invalidates preventive detention, and held that the record can be called for to verify whether the statutory and constitutional safeguards were observed.

Conclusion: The detention was not vitiated on the ground of non-communication of the rejection order by the competent authority.

Issue (ii): Whether, after the detention order was quashed and a substantial period had elapsed, the detenu should be required to undergo the remaining period of detention or the competent authority should first reconsider the desirability of further detention.

Analysis: The Court applied the principle that remitting a detenu to custody after a long lapse of time does not automatically follow once the earlier order is restored or the quashing is reversed. The relevant inquiry is whether a proximate temporal nexus still exists between the original detention purpose and the present stage, and whether continued detention remains desirable in the light of the elapsed time and surrounding circumstances.

Conclusion: The detaining authority was directed to re-examine, within two months, whether further detention was still warranted.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's release order was set aside, the detention order was upheld in principle, and the question of continued custody was left for fresh consideration by the detaining authority within the time fixed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, the constitutional requirement under Article 22(5) is met when the competent authority gives real and proper consideration to the representation and its subjective satisfaction is evident from the record, even if the rejection order is communicated through a subordinate officer and is not a speaking order.

---