https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277926 Article 22(5) requires a detenu's representation against preventive detention to be considered with reasonable dispatch, and no fixed universal time-limit can be set. Any substantial delay must be justified by cogent and convincing material; a vague plea of pressure of work or increased detention cases is insufficient. Where the State cannot show that the delay was unavoidable or satisfactorily explained, the constitutional safeguard of personal liberty is undermined and the detention order is invalid. In the stated decision, the delay was not satisfactorily explained, so the detention order was quashed and release directed. en-us Wed, 11 Oct 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Dec 2018 18:34:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277926 Article 22(5) requires a detenu's representation against preventive detention to be considered with reasonable dispatch, and no fixed universal time-limit can be set. Any substantial delay must be justified by cogent and convincing material; a vague plea of pressure of work or increased detention cases is insufficient. Where the State cannot show that the delay was unavoidable or satisfactorily explained, the constitutional safeguard of personal liberty is undermined and the detention order is invalid. In the stated decision, the delay was not satisfactorily explained, so the detention order was quashed and release directed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 11 Oct 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277926