https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395387 Preventive detention under the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances law was challenged on the ground that the detenu's representations were not considered with the expedition mandated by Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. The HC held that the detaining authority must promptly forward and decide representations, but no explanation was given for not sending one representation to the specially empowered officer, and the unexplained delay in forwarding and deciding the representation addressed to the Central Government showed inordinate delay amounting to non-consideration. This violated the detenu's constitutional right to an effective representation, vitiating the continued detention; the detention order was set aside and the detenu directed to be released unless required in any other case. en-us Tue, 12 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 14:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395387 Preventive detention under the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances law was challenged on the ground that the detenu's representations were not considered with the expedition mandated by Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. The HC held that the detaining authority must promptly forward and decide representations, but no explanation was given for not sending one representation to the specially empowered officer, and the unexplained delay in forwarding and deciding the representation addressed to the Central Government showed inordinate delay amounting to non-consideration. This violated the detenu's constitutional right to an effective representation, vitiating the continued detention; the detention order was set aside and the detenu directed to be released unless required in any other case. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 12 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395387