https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188164 Article 22(5) requires the State Government to consider a detenu's representation with promptitude, and that duty remains independent of the Advisory Board process. Where the representations were received and rejected after substantial delay, and the State offered no explanation for the delay in its counter affidavit, the delay was treated as excessive and inconsistent with the constitutional obligation of expeditious consideration. The continued preventive detention was therefore held illegal, and the detenus were ordered to be released forthwith. en-us Tue, 02 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Nov 2016 17:35:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188164 Article 22(5) requires the State Government to consider a detenu's representation with promptitude, and that duty remains independent of the Advisory Board process. Where the representations were received and rejected after substantial delay, and the State offered no explanation for the delay in its counter affidavit, the delay was treated as excessive and inconsistent with the constitutional obligation of expeditious consideration. The continued preventive detention was therefore held illegal, and the detenus were ordered to be released forthwith. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188164