Independent consideration of detenue representation must be prompt; delay pending Advisory Board opinion can vitiate detention.

A specially empowered detaining authority must consider a detenue's representation independently and with expedition; it cannot defer decision merely because the matter is pending before the Advisory Board. Applying binding Supreme Court authority, the High Court found no valid explanation for the delay in deciding the representation and rejected the argument that consideration could await the Board's opinion. The Court also held that prospective overruling was not available before it. The unexplained delay was therefore unconstitutional and the failure to decide the representation independently vitiated the detention.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Detaining Authority was bound to consider the representation independently and without waiting for the opinion of the Central Advisory Board, and whether the delay in doing so violated the petitioner's constitutional rights.

Analysis: The applicable legal position was taken from the binding Supreme Court ruling which clarified that, where a detention order is passed by a specially empowered detaining authority, the detenue's representation must be considered by that authority on its own and with expedition. The authority cannot defer consideration merely because the matter is pending before the Advisory Board. The Court found no valid explanation for the delay in deciding the petitioner's representation and rejected the contention that the representation could be kept pending until the Advisory Board's opinion was received. The plea of prospective overruling was also held not to be available before the High Court.

Conclusion: The delay was held to be unconstitutional, and the Detaining Authority's failure to decide the representation independently was found to vitiate the detention.

Ratio Decidendi: A specially empowered detaining authority must consider a detenue's representation independently and promptly, and cannot await the Advisory Board's opinion; unexplained delay in doing so violates the detenue's constitutional right to make an effective representation.

---