Preventive detention in custody requires awareness, real bail possibility, and necessity to prevent future prejudicial activity.

Article 22(5) requires an effective representation considered with expedition; a representation addressed to the President or Governor may, in principle, satisfy the constitutional scheme, but a detenu who follows a different route from that indicated in the detention order without explaining the departure may create avoidable delay. Preventive detention of a person already in custody is not invalid per se if the detaining authority knows of the custody, has reliable material showing a real possibility of bail, and records necessity to prevent prejudicial activity after release. The commentary also stresses that preventive detention review remains strict, yet the facts, the detenu's conduct, and the detention period already undergone may affect interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a representation addressed to the President of India satisfied the constitutional requirement under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether a preventive detention order could be sustained where the detenu was already in custody, having regard to the likelihood of release on bail and the detaining authority's awareness of custody. (iii) Whether the detention order could be interfered with in the facts of the case, including the effect of the detenu's conduct and the period already undergone in detention.

Issue (i): Whether a representation addressed to the President of India satisfied the constitutional requirement under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The right to make a representation under Article 22(5) includes the right to an effective representation and the representation must be considered with utmost expedition by the appropriate authority. A representation to the President or Governor may, in principle, amount to a representation to the Central or State Government. However, where the detention order specifically indicates the proper authority to whom the representation must be made and the detenu chooses a different route without disclosing why that course was adopted, the Court may treat the conduct as a device to create avoidable delay and confusion. The review petition also introduced a factual basis not pleaded in the writ petition, which the Court treated as an impermissible attempt to change the case.

Conclusion: The representation to the President did not furnish a ground to invalidate the detention in the circumstances of the case.

Issue (ii): Whether a preventive detention order could be sustained where the detenu was already in custody, having regard to the likelihood of release on bail and the detaining authority's awareness of custody.

Analysis: Preventive detention of a person already in custody is not invalid per se. The governing requirement is that the detaining authority must be aware of the custody, must have reliable material showing a real possibility of release on bail, and must be satisfied that detention is necessary to prevent prejudicial activity after release. The grounds of detention in the present case reflected awareness of custody and the possibility of release on bail, satisfying the settled safeguards for such detention.

Conclusion: The detention order was not vitiated merely because the detenu was already in custody.

Issue (iii): Whether the detention order could be interfered with in the facts of the case, including the effect of the detenu's conduct and the period already undergone in detention.

Analysis: The Court emphasized the strictness of preventive detention review, the importance of personal liberty, and the need to guard against procedural violations. At the same time, it found that the detenu had already undergone almost the entire period of detention and that the challenge was weakened by the manner in which the representation issue had been projected. Balancing these considerations, the Court declined to interfere.

Conclusion: No interference was called for on the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The detention was upheld and the challenge failed, with the Court declining to set aside the preventive detention order in view of the totality of circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order against a person already in custody is valid if the detaining authority is aware of the custody, has material showing a real possibility of release on bail, and records a necessity to detain to prevent prejudicial activity; a representation under Article 22(5) must be made and processed in a manner consistent with the statutory and constitutional scheme, but a diversionary or concealed approach will not automatically invalidate the detention.

---