https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170980 A detenu has an independent constitutional right under Article 22(5) to have his representation considered promptly, and the authority must explain any delay satisfactorily. No fixed time limit applies; the test is whether the delay is unreasonable on the facts. The text states that where the representation remained pending for an inordinate period, the delay in obtaining and forwarding information was inadequately explained, and disposal and communication were also unjustified, the constitutional safeguard was breached. On that basis, the detention order was vitiated and the detention was treated as invalid. en-us Fri, 05 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170980 A detenu has an independent constitutional right under Article 22(5) to have his representation considered promptly, and the authority must explain any delay satisfactorily. No fixed time limit applies; the test is whether the delay is unreasonable on the facts. The text states that where the representation remained pending for an inordinate period, the delay in obtaining and forwarding information was inadequately explained, and disposal and communication were also unjustified, the constitutional safeguard was breached. On that basis, the detention order was vitiated and the detention was treated as invalid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 05 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170980