Preventive detention safeguard requires forwarding a detenu's Central Government representation; non-transmission vitiates detention.

Where a detention statute empowers the Central Government to revoke a detention order, the detenu has a corresponding effective right to place a representation before that authority. The State Government must therefore forward a representation addressed for Central Government consideration, and non-transmission frustrates the statutory safeguard. On the facts described, the detenu's representation was not forwarded, the Central Government did not consider it, and the detention was treated as illegal because the mandatory revocation mechanism was denied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was liable to be quashed because the detenu's representation addressed to the Central Government was not forwarded by the State Government, thereby depriving the detenu of the statutory right to seek revocation of detention.

Analysis: The detention was made under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, and the detenu invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The detenu had submitted representations through the jail authorities, including a copy endorsed for submission to the Government of India for consideration and revocation. The statutory scheme under Section 11(1) of the Act confers power on the Central Government to revoke a detention order even where made by the State Government, and that power necessarily carries with it an effective right in the detenu to place a representation before the Central Government. Failure by the State Government to forward the representation resulted in the Central Government not considering it, which deprived the detenu of a valuable safeguard.

Conclusion: The detention order was held illegal for non-forwarding of the representation to the Central Government, and the detenu was entitled to be set at liberty.

Final Conclusion: Preventive detention cannot be sustained where the statutory opportunity to seek revocation by the Central Government is frustrated by non-transmission of the detenu's representation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a detention statute confers revocation power on the Central Government, the detaining authorities must effectively forward a detenu's representation intended for that Government, and failure to do so vitiates the detention by denying a meaningful statutory safeguard.

---