https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180877 Article 22(5) requires representations against preventive detention to be considered promptly and with urgency; unexplained delay, slackness, or callousness in disposal breaches the constitutional safeguard and makes continued detention impermissible. On the stated facts, the Central Government's delay in rejecting the detenus' representations was held unjustified, and the detention orders were quashed. Habeas corpus proceedings protecting personal liberty are not to be defeated by technical objections about the prayer or timing of the petition; such objections were rejected where the detention had already become unlawful. en-us Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Apr 2016 09:58:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180877 Article 22(5) requires representations against preventive detention to be considered promptly and with urgency; unexplained delay, slackness, or callousness in disposal breaches the constitutional safeguard and makes continued detention impermissible. On the stated facts, the Central Government's delay in rejecting the detenus' representations was held unjustified, and the detention orders were quashed. Habeas corpus proceedings protecting personal liberty are not to be defeated by technical objections about the prayer or timing of the petition; such objections were rejected where the detention had already become unlawful. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180877