Independent consideration of detenue representations and disclosure of Central Government remedy are essential in preventive detention.

In preventive detention matters, the detaining or confirming authority must independently consider the detenue's representation under Article 22(5), rather than treat it as subsumed within the Advisory Board process. The note states that confirmation under the statutory scheme is not automatic on the Board's opinion and fails where the Government does not show separate consideration of the representation. It also states that the detenue must be informed of the right to make a representation to the Central Government where that authority may revoke or modify the detention; omission of that intimation renders the detention process defective.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confirmation order was vitiated for non-consideration of the detenue's representation independently of the Advisory Board's opinion. (ii) Whether the detention was vitiated for failure to apprise the detenue of his right to make a representation to the Central Government.

Issue (i): Whether the confirmation order was vitiated for non-consideration of the detenue's representation independently of the Advisory Board's opinion.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 9(f) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 permits the appropriate Government to confirm detention when the Advisory Board reports sufficient cause, but that power remains independent of the Board's view. The constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) requires the detenue's representation to be considered by the Government on its own merits and not merely as part of the Advisory Board process. On the records, the confirmation order and the proceedings disclosed no independent consideration of the representation by the State Government.

Conclusion: The challenge succeeded and the confirmation order was held to be vitiated, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the detention was vitiated for failure to apprise the detenue of his right to make a representation to the Central Government.

Analysis: Section 12(1)(b) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 empowers the Central Government to revoke or modify a State detention order. Read with Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, the detenue's right to make a representation carries a corresponding obligation on the detaining authority to inform him of the authorities competent to consider such representation. Since the detenue was not informed of this right, the preventive detention process was found to be defective.

Conclusion: The detention was held to be vitiated on this ground as well, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention orders could not be sustained because the detenue's representation was not independently considered and he was not informed of the right to seek revocation from the Central Government.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, the detaining or confirming authority must independently consider the detenue's representation under Article 22(5), and the detenue must be informed of the right to make a representation to every authority legally competent to revoke the detention.

---