Preventive detention representation may be considered after confirmation if independently and promptly reviewed by government.

Preventive detention under COFEPOSA is not invalid merely because the detenu's representation is considered after confirmation of detention. Article 22(5) requires the Government to consider a representation independently, expeditiously, and with an unbiased mind, but neither the Constitution nor the Act mandates that such consideration must precede confirmation. The duty to decide the representation is distinct from the Advisory Board's function under Article 22(4) and the statutory confirmation process. A prompt, separate consideration is mandatory, and delay must not be unexplained, but post-confirmation consideration by itself does not vitiate the detention or the confirmation.

---

---

Issues: Whether a detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 becomes invalid merely because the detenus' representations were considered after confirmation of detention by the Government and whether such later consideration cures or affects the validity of the confirmation.

Analysis: Article 22(5) guarantees the right to make a representation against preventive detention and the corresponding duty of the Government to consider it independently and with expedition. That duty is distinct from the Advisory Board's advisory function under Article 22(4) and Section 8 of the Act. The requirement of prompt consideration is mandatory, but no rigid time-limit can be imposed; the legality of the detention depends on whether the representation was dealt with as soon as may be, without unexplained delay and with an unbiased mind. The Court held that neither the Constitution nor the statute requires the representation to be decided before confirmation of the detention order. So long as the representation is separately and properly considered, its consideration after confirmation does not by itself invalidate the detention or the confirmation.

Conclusion: The contention that post-confirmation consideration of the representation automatically invalidates the detention order was rejected; the earlier contrary view was overruled and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A detenu's representation under Article 22(5) must be independently and expeditiously considered by the Government, but there is no constitutional or statutory mandate that such consideration must precede confirmation of detention.

---