https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175312 Article 22(5) requires not only an opportunity to make a representation against preventive detention but also prompt disposal and communication of the decision to the detenu. Where the Central Government had rejected the detainee's representation under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, but that rejection was not communicated at the earliest opportunity, the constitutional safeguard was breached and continued detention was vitiated in law, rendering the detention order liable to be quashed. en-us Tue, 13 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:56:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175312 Article 22(5) requires not only an opportunity to make a representation against preventive detention but also prompt disposal and communication of the decision to the detenu. Where the Central Government had rejected the detainee's representation under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, but that rejection was not communicated at the earliest opportunity, the constitutional safeguard was breached and continued detention was vitiated in law, rendering the detention order liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 13 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175312