Article 22(5) requires prompt disposal of a detenu's representation; unexplained delay can invalidate preventive detention.

Prompt consideration of a detenu's representation is a constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5), and delay must be explained at each stage by the authority responsible for it. Where the representation under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was not disposed of satisfactorily, particularly during the period awaiting comments from the Sponsoring Authority, the unexplained delay violated Article 22(5). The continued preventive detention was therefore held invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether unexplained delay in consideration of the detenu's representation under Article 22(5) vitiated the continued detention.

Analysis: The representation was made against a preventive detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The delay in disposal was not satisfactorily explained at every stage, particularly the period during which comments were awaited from the Sponsoring Authority. The constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) requires prompt consideration of a detenu's representation, and any stage-wise delay must be accounted for by the concerned authority. In the absence of an explanation for the delay attributable to the Sponsoring Authority, the detention could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The unexplained delay infringed Article 22(5) and rendered the continued detention invalid, in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay in disposal of a detenu's representation must be explained at each stage by the authority responsible for the delay; unexplained delay violates Article 22(5) and vitiates preventive detention.

---