advocatemmmohan
Vandalam Domini v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
2026:APHC:25301 (A.P.)
HEAD NOTES
A. Constitution of India—Articles 21 & 22(5)—Preventive Detention—Representation by detenu—Constitutional obligation—Expeditious consideration.
The constitutional guarantee under Article 22(5) casts a mandatory obligation upon the appropriate Government to consider a detenu's representation as expeditiously as possible. Though no rigid time limit is prescribed, every day's delay must be satisfactorily explained. Any unexplained delay amounts to breach of the constitutional mandate and renders the continued detention illegal.
Held: Delay of more than two months in deciding the representation, without any explanation whatsoever, vitiated the continued detention.
(Paras 8–15)
B. Preventive Detention—Delay in disposal of representation—Unexplained delay—Effect.
Where the Government merely states the dates of receipt and rejection of the representation without furnishing any explanation for the intervening delay, such delay cannot be treated as administrative or procedural. In the absence of satisfactory explanation, the continued detention becomes unconstitutional.
Held: The order of continued detention cannot survive where delay remains wholly unexplained.
(Paras 6, 8, 14 & 15)
C. Preventive Detention—Representation after confirmation of detention order—Maintainability.
A representation submitted even after confirmation of the detention order continues to be maintainable. The Government remains under an independent constitutional obligation to examine such representation promptly and objectively. Confirmation of detention does not extinguish the detenu's right to seek revocation.
(Paras 11 & 12)
D. Preventive Detention—Representation—Speaking order not mandatory—Real consideration essential.
While disposal of the representation need not necessarily be by a speaking order, there must be genuine, independent and prompt consideration by the Government. Delay unsupported by satisfactory explanation violates Articles 21 and 22(5).
(Paras 9–12)
E. Constitution of India—Articles 21 & 22(5)—Personal liberty—Highest constitutional value.
Personal liberty being the most cherished fundamental right, procedural safeguards in preventive detention laws require strict compliance. Constitutional safeguards cannot be diluted on grounds of administrative convenience or procedural formalities.
(Paras 9–15)
F. Preventive Detention—Judicial Review.
While the original detention order may not become void merely because the representation is decided after confirmation, unexplained delay in considering such representation renders the continued detention illegal and entitles the detenu to immediate release.
(Paras 11–16)
ANALYSIS OF FACTS
The detenu was detained under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS Act), by G.O.Rt. No.708 dated 09.07.2025. The detention was confirmed on 10.10.2025 for twelve months. Thereafter, the detenu submitted a representation dated 05.01.2026 seeking revocation of the detention order. The representation was received by the Government on 07.01.2026 but was rejected only on 18.03.2026. The State furnished no explanation for the delay of more than two months. The detenu's wife challenged the continued detention by filing a writ of habeas corpus.
ANALYSIS OF LAW
(i) Constitutional Duty to Decide Representation Promptly
The Division Bench reaffirmed the Constitution Bench decision in K.M. Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India, holding that Article 22(5) imposes a constitutional obligation to dispose of every representation with utmost expedition.
The expression "as soon as may be" reflects constitutional urgency rather than administrative discretion.
(Paras 9–12)
(ii) Delay Must Be Explained
The Court observed that:
- representation received on 07.01.2026;
- rejected only on 18.03.2026;
- neither the rejection order nor the counter affidavit explained the delay.
Mere narration of dates does not amount to an explanation.
Accordingly, the delay remained wholly unexplained.
(Paras 6, 8 & 14)
(iii) Representation After Confirmation
The Court reiterated that confirmation of preventive detention does not extinguish the detenu's constitutional right to submit a representation.
The Government must independently examine such representation and revoke the detention if continued detention is unjustified.
(Paras 11 & 12)
(iv) Effect of Constitutional Violation
Following K.M. Abdulla Kunhi and the earlier Division Bench decision in Cheemparthi Shaheen v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court held that unexplained delay in deciding the representation renders only the continued detention illegal.
Consequently, the detenu becomes entitled to immediate release.
(Paras 13–16)
RATIO DECIDENDI
The constitutional safeguard embodied in Article 22(5) mandates that every representation made by a preventive detenu, whether before or after confirmation of the detention order, must be considered independently and with utmost expedition. Where the Government fails to furnish any satisfactory explanation for delay in disposal of such representation, the continued detention becomes unconstitutional and illegal, entitling the detenu to immediate release notwithstanding the validity of the original detention order.
FINAL HOLDING
- Writ Petition allowed.
- Delay of more than two months in deciding the detenu's representation held wholly unexplained.
- Constitutional mandate under Articles 21 and 22(5) held violated.
- Preventive detention order dated 09.07.2025 and confirmation order dated 10.10.2025 set aside.
- Continued detention declared illegal.
- Detenu directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
- No order as to costs.
(Paras 15 & 16)
