Preventive detention safeguard under Article 22(5): detaining authority must independently consider the detenu's representation, even if addressed to the Advisory Board.

Article 22(5) requires the detaining authority to independently consider and decide a detenu's representation; that constitutional duty is not displaced by the Advisory Board's separate consideration. The manner in which the representation is addressed is only a matter of form, so a representation addressed to the Advisory Board, the Government, or both still triggers the Government's independent obligation. Because the Central Government did not separately consider the representation, the detention was held to breach Article 22(5), and the detention and confirmation orders were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a preventive detention case, the detaining authority must independently consider the detenu's representation under Article 22(5) even when the representation was addressed only to the Advisory Board.

Analysis: The constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) requires the detaining authority to consider and decide the detenu's representation on its own, without being influenced by the Advisory Board's view. The Advisory Board's consideration is an additional safeguard and does not substitute the Government's independent obligation. The mode of address of the representation is only a matter of form and cannot whittle down the constitutional mandate. So long as there is a representation against the detention order, the duty of independent consideration arises whether the representation is addressed to the Government, the Advisory Board, or both.

Conclusion: The Central Government's failure to independently consider the detenu's representation amounted to a breach of Article 22(5), and the detention and confirmation orders were quashed in favour of the petitioner.

---