https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188082 Article 22(5) confers a substantive right not only to make a representation against preventive detention but also to have that representation considered promptly by the authority to whom it is addressed. The existence of an Advisory Board does not postpone or replace the State Government's duty to examine the representation before forwarding it. Because the constitutional safeguard is mandatory and independent of the Advisory Board process, failure by the State Government to consider the representation vitiates the detention and confirmation as ultra vires, entitling the detenu to release. en-us Fri, 31 Jan 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:27:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188082 Article 22(5) confers a substantive right not only to make a representation against preventive detention but also to have that representation considered promptly by the authority to whom it is addressed. The existence of an Advisory Board does not postpone or replace the State Government's duty to examine the representation before forwarding it. Because the constitutional safeguard is mandatory and independent of the Advisory Board process, failure by the State Government to consider the representation vitiates the detention and confirmation as ultra vires, entitling the detenu to release. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 31 Jan 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188082