The six-month cooling-off period prescribed under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is directory. Where spouses have lived separately for the requisite period, have voluntarily and completely settled all ancillary disputes, and there exists no possibility of reconciliation, the Family Court ought to exercise its discretion to waive the cooling-off period. Mechanical insistence upon expiry of six months frustrates the very object of the provision and warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

 

advocatemmmohan

Chenikala Harshavardhini & Anr. v. Nil

2026:APHC:21296 (A.P.)

---

HEAD NOTES 

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 13-B(2)—Mutual Consent Divorce—Cooling-off period—Nature.

The six-month cooling-off period prescribed under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is directory and not mandatory. The Family Court possesses discretion to waive the period where the statutory object has already been achieved and there exists no possibility of reconciliation.

Held: The Family Court erred in treating the cooling-off period as mandatory and in refusing to advance the matter solely on that ground.

---

B. Divorce by Mutual Consent—Waiver of cooling-off period—Conditions.

Where the spouses have lived separately for the requisite period, have amicably settled all matrimonial disputes including permanent alimony, custody of the child, withdrawal of criminal proceedings and distribution of properties, and have unequivocally expressed their intention to dissolve the marriage, insistence upon the cooling-off period serves no useful purpose.

(Paras 10–12)

---

C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 13-B—Object of cooling-off period.

The object of the statutory cooling-off period is to afford the spouses an opportunity for reconciliation and reconsideration of their decision. Once that object stands exhausted and reconciliation has become impossible, continuance of the waiting period merely prolongs the agony of the parties.

(Paras 11 & 12)

---

D. Family Court—Exercise of discretion.

A Family Court must examine the facts of each case while considering waiver of the cooling-off period. Mechanical insistence upon expiry of six months, ignoring a complete and genuine settlement between the parties, amounts to improper exercise of jurisdiction.

(Paras 10–13)

---

E. Article 227 of the Constitution—Supervisory jurisdiction.

Where the Family Court refuses to exercise the discretion vested in it by law by proceeding on an erroneous understanding that the statutory cooling-off period is mandatory, the High Court may interfere under Article 227 and issue appropriate directions for expeditious disposal.

(Paras 9–13)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

The petitioners, husband and wife, were married on 04.12.2022 and had a daughter born on 02.09.2023. Owing to matrimonial disputes, they lived separately for more than one year and jointly filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. During the pendency of the proceedings, they amicably settled all disputes relating to permanent alimony, custody and welfare of the minor child, property distribution and withdrawal of criminal proceedings. They sought advancement of the divorce petition and waiver of the statutory cooling-off period. The Family Court rejected the application holding that the six-month period was mandatory. The petitioners challenged the said order under Article 227.

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

(i) Nature of the Cooling-off Period

The High Court relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, AIR 2017 SC 4417, and Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal, (2023) 17 SCC 648, reiterating that the six-month period under Section 13-B(2) is directory and may be waived in appropriate cases.

---

(ii) Purpose of Section 13-B(2)

The Court observed that the legislative intent behind the cooling-off period is to facilitate reconciliation and enable the spouses to reconsider their decision. Once the parties have genuinely resolved every matrimonial dispute and there remains no possibility of reunion, insistence upon the waiting period defeats rather than advances the object of the provision.

---

(iii) Settlement Between the Parties

The Court found that the settlement comprehensively covered:

• permanent alimony;

• custody and welfare of the minor daughter;

• distribution of properties;

• withdrawal of criminal proceedings; and

• voluntary decision of both parties to dissolve the marriage.

The settlement was found to be voluntary, genuine and complete, leaving no surviving dispute.

---

(iv) Improper Exercise of Jurisdiction by the Family Court

The Family Court proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the six-month cooling-off period was mandatory. Such an approach ignored the binding law declared by the Supreme Court and amounted to failure to exercise the judicial discretion vested under Section 13-B(2).

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

The six-month cooling-off period prescribed under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is directory. Where spouses have lived separately for the requisite period, have voluntarily and completely settled all ancillary disputes, and there exists no possibility of reconciliation, the Family Court ought to exercise its discretion to waive the cooling-off period. Mechanical insistence upon expiry of six months frustrates the very object of the provision and warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

---

FINAL HOLDING

• Civil Revision Petition allowed.

• Order of the Family Court dismissing the application for advancement set aside.

• Held that the statutory cooling-off period under Section 13-B(2) is directory and liable to be waived in the facts of the case.

• Family Court directed to take up the mutual consent divorce petition and pass appropriate orders for dissolution of marriage, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

• Pending miscellaneous petitions ordered to stand closed.

Where a court directs compliance within a specified period, the limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act commences immediately upon expiry of that period. A contempt petition instituted beyond one year is barred unless the petitioner specifically pleads and establishes a legally sustainable ground for exemption from limitation, such as a genuine continuing breach. Mere non-compliance with the order or subsequent collateral litigation does not extend or revive the statutory period of limitation.

 

advocatemmmohan

S. Janardhana v. Shri Anil Kumar Singhal & Ors.

2026:APHC:24762 (A.P.)

---

HEAD NOTES 

A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Section 20—Civil Contempt—Limitation—One year—Mandatory.

Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act prescribes a mandatory limitation of one year from the date on which the alleged contempt is committed. A contempt petition presented beyond the statutory period is not maintainable unless the case falls within a legally recognised ground for exemption from limitation.

Held: Where the direction of the writ court was to comply within a specified period and the contempt petition was filed after expiry of more than one year from the date of default, the petition was barred by limitation.

(Paras 4–6 & 11–14)

---

B. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Section 20—Condonation of delay—Not maintainable.

Contempt proceedings are original proceedings akin to a suit. Consequently, an application seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not maintainable. Only statutory grounds for exemption from limitation, where legally available, may be invoked.

(Paras 5 & 6)

---

C. Civil Contempt—Continuing wrong or continuing breach—Plea—Requirements.

A mere assertion that the contempt constitutes a continuing wrong does not save limitation. The petitioner must specifically plead the factual foundation for claiming exemption from limitation and satisfy the Court that the alleged breach is truly continuing. Courts must guard against stale claims camouflaged as continuing contempt.

Held: In the absence of pleadings establishing a continuing breach or any ground seeking exemption from limitation, the plea cannot be accepted.

(Paras 8–12)

---

D. Limitation—Commencement.

Where a court directs compliance within a specified period, limitation under Section 20 begins to run immediately upon expiry of that period. Subsequent proceedings challenging the original order or subsequent litigation do not postpone or revive the period of limitation unless the original direction stood stayed or kept in abeyance.

(Paras 13 & 14)

---

E. Contempt Jurisdiction—Subsequent litigation—Effect.

The subsequent challenge to the order directed to be implemented does not enlarge or extend limitation for filing contempt proceedings where the original implementation order remained operative and was never stayed.

(Para 13)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

The petitioner alleged wilful disobedience of the High Court's earlier order directing implementation of the Tribunal's order within three months. The stipulated period expired without compliance. However, the contempt petition was instituted well beyond one year from the expiry of the compliance period. The petitioner attempted to contend that the cause of action was continuous and also relied upon subsequent litigation challenging the Tribunal's order.

The respondents opposed maintainability on the ground of limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

(i) Limitation under Section 20

The Division Bench held that Section 20 creates a statutory bar against initiation of contempt proceedings after expiry of one year from the date of the alleged contempt. The limitation commences when the period granted for compliance expires.

Relying upon S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah, the Court held that contempt petitions must be instituted within the prescribed period.

(Paras 4–6)

---

(ii) Continuing Wrong

The Court examined the doctrine of continuing wrong as explained by the Supreme Court in S. Tirupathi Rao and held that the plea is not available merely because the order remains unimplemented.

A petitioner seeking exemption from limitation must:

• specifically plead continuing breach;

• disclose factual grounds for exemption;

• establish that the breach is legally continuous.

In the present case, no such pleadings existed.

(Paras 8–12)

---

(iii) Effect of Subsequent Proceedings

The petitioner argued that subsequent writ proceedings challenging the Tribunal's order extended limitation.

Rejecting the contention, the Court held that:

• limitation commenced from expiry of the period fixed in the earlier writ order;

• subsequent litigation could not revive limitation;

• there was no order staying implementation of the earlier writ direction.

(Para 13)

---

(iv) Original Proceedings

The Court reiterated that contempt proceedings are original proceedings akin to civil suits. Consequently, Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application for condoning delay in filing contempt petitions.

Only legally recognised grounds of exemption may be invoked in exceptional cases.

(Paras 5 & 6)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Where a court directs compliance within a specified period, the limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act commences immediately upon expiry of that period. A contempt petition instituted beyond one year is barred unless the petitioner specifically pleads and establishes a legally sustainable ground for exemption from limitation, such as a genuine continuing breach. Mere non-compliance with the order or subsequent collateral litigation does not extend or revive the statutory period of limitation.

---

FINAL HOLDING

• Contempt petition held barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

• Plea of continuing cause of action rejected.

• Subsequent challenge to the Tribunal's order held irrelevant for computing limitation.

• No ground for exemption from limitation pleaded or established.

• Contempt Case dismissed.

• No order as to costs.

(Paras 11–14)

Professional legal services rendered by an advocate to a client arise out of a fiduciary relationship constituting a contract of personal service and, therefore, stand excluded from the definition of "service" under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Consequently, a complaint alleging deficiency in legal services against an advocate is not maintainable before the Consumer Fora, and writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to revive proceedings which are inherently not maintainable.

 

advocatemmmohan

A.S.S.K. Durga Prasad v. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & Ors.

2026:APHC:24761 (A.P.)

---

HEAD NOTES 

A. Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 2(42)—Advocates—Legal profession—Deficiency in service—Maintainability of consumer complaint.

The services rendered by an advocate in the course of legal practice arise out of a contract of personal service and are excluded from the definition of "service" under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Consequently, a complaint alleging deficiency in legal services against an advocate is not maintainable before the Consumer Fora.

Held: Consumer complaint filed against an advocate alleging deficiency in professional legal services was rightly dismissed by the Consumer Fora at all three levels.

(Paras 5–10)

---

B. Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Legal profession—Professionals—Legislative intent.

The Consumer Protection Act is intended to protect consumers against unfair trade practices and commercial deficiencies in services. The legislature never intended to bring the legal profession within the ambit of consumer jurisdiction. The legal profession is sui generis and cannot be equated with ordinary commercial or business services.

(Paras 7 & 8)

---

C. Advocates Act, 1961—Advocate and client—Nature of relationship.

The relationship between an advocate and a client is fiduciary and rests upon confidence, trust and personal confidence. An advocate acts under the client's instructions and owes professional duties regulated by the Advocates Act and the Bar Council Rules. Such relationship constitutes a contract of personal service and therefore falls outside the Consumer Protection Act.

(Paras 7 & 8)

---

D. Consumer Protection—Precedent—Binding effect of Supreme Court.

The decision of the Supreme Court in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases, (2024) 8 SCC 430, conclusively settles that complaints alleging deficiency in legal services against advocates are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Consumer Fora are bound by the said declaration of law.

(Paras 7–10)

---

E. Writ Jurisdiction—Challenge to concurrent consumer forum decisions.

Where the District Consumer Commission, State Commission and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission have concurrently dismissed a complaint which is itself not maintainable in law, no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(Paras 9–11)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

The petitioner instituted a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against his advocate alleging deficiency in professional legal services rendered in connection with civil litigation. The complaint was dismissed on merits. The appeal before the State Commission and the revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission were also dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court challenging all the three orders.

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

(i) Maintainability of Consumer Complaint Against an Advocate

The Division Bench held that the issue is no longer res integra. Relying upon the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases, the Court held that advocates rendering professional legal services do not provide "service" within the meaning of Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

---

(ii) Nature of Legal Profession

The Court observed that an advocate-client relationship is fundamentally fiduciary in character. The advocate functions under the instructions of the client, owes professional obligations under the Advocates Act and the Bar Council Rules, and does not render commercial services comparable to business or trade.

Accordingly, legal services constitute a contract of personal service, expressly excluded from the statutory definition of "service".

---

(iii) Binding Effect of Supreme Court Decision

The Court extracted and followed paragraphs 51 to 53 and 80 to 82 of Bar of Indian Lawyers, wherein the Supreme Court held:

• legal profession is sui generis;

• advocates' services are excluded from consumer jurisdiction;

• complaints alleging deficiency in legal services are not maintainable;

• the earlier contrary view of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission stands overruled.

---

(iv) Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction

Since the complaint itself was legally incompetent, the concurrent dismissal by the District Commission, State Commission and National Commission called for no interference under Article 226.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Professional legal services rendered by an advocate to a client arise out of a fiduciary relationship constituting a contract of personal service and, therefore, stand excluded from the definition of "service" under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Consequently, a complaint alleging deficiency in legal services against an advocate is not maintainable before the Consumer Fora, and writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to revive proceedings which are inherently not maintainable.

---

FINAL HOLDING

• Consumer complaint against the advocate held to be not maintainable.

• Orders of the District Consumer Commission, State Consumer Commission and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld.

• No ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

• Writ Petition dismissed.

• No order as to costs.

A preventive detenu possesses a continuing constitutional right under Article 22(5) to have his representation considered expeditiously, even after confirmation of the detention order. Where the Government fails to furnish a reasonable explanation for delay in considering such representation, the constitutional mandate stands violated, rendering the continued detention illegal, though the original order of detention is not thereby rendered void ab initio.

 

advocatemmmohan

Cheemparthi Shaheen v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

2026:APHC:24998 (A.P.)

---

HEAD NOTES 

A. Constitution of India—Articles 21 & 22(5)—Preventive Detention—Representation—Delay in consideration—Effect.

The constitutional mandate under Article 22(5) requires the appropriate Government to consider every representation made by a detenu with utmost expedition. Although no rigid time-limit is prescribed, the delay must be satisfactorily explained. Any unexplained or unreasonable delay amounts to violation of the constitutional safeguard and renders the continued detention illegal.

Held: Delay in considering the detenu's representation, unsupported by any reasonable explanation either in the rejection order or the counter-affidavit, vitiated the continued detention.

(Paras 23–30)

---

B. Preventive Detention—Representation after confirmation of detention—Right survives.

The right of a detenu to make a representation does not cease upon confirmation of the detention order. Even after confirmation, the Government is under an independent constitutional obligation to consider such representation promptly and objectively. Confirmation of detention is not conclusive and does not bar revocation.

(Paras 16, 17 & 24)

---

C. Preventive Detention—Delay—Explanation—Requirement.

The validity of continued detention depends not upon the duration of delay but upon the adequacy and reasonableness of the explanation offered. Administrative movement of files or inter-departmental correspondence cannot justify prolonged delay unless supported by satisfactory material demonstrating continuous and diligent consideration.

(Paras 21, 23, 25 & 26)

---

D. Constitution of India—Articles 21 & 22(5)—Personal liberty—Procedural safeguards.

Preventive detention laws, being exceptional in nature, require strict adherence to constitutional safeguards. Since personal liberty is a cherished fundamental right, any laxity, indifference or unexplained delay in considering the detenu's representation violates Articles 21 and 22(5).

(Paras 14–24)

---

E. Preventive Detention—Order of detention—Continued detention—Distinction.

Unexplained delay in disposal of the detenu's representation does not render the original detention order void ab initio. The legal consequence is that only the continued detention becomes unconstitutional, entitling the detenu to immediate release.

(Paras 22–24, 29 & 30)

---

F. Habeas Corpus—Release of detenu.

Where the Court finds unexplained delay in disposal of the detenu's representation, the writ of Habeas Corpus deserves to be allowed and the detenu directed to be released forthwith, unless required in any other lawful custody.

(Paras 27–30)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

The petitioner challenged the preventive detention of her husband under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986. Although the detention order had been confirmed by the State Government, the detenu submitted a representation after confirmation seeking revocation. The representation remained pending for an extended period before being rejected. The record disclosed substantial delay in processing the representation, particularly after receipt of the Collector's remarks, without any explanation in the Government order or the counter-affidavit. The petitioner sought a writ of Habeas Corpus contending that such unexplained delay violated Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution.

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

(i) Constitutional Right to Representation

The Division Bench held that the right to submit a representation is a valuable constitutional safeguard flowing from Article 22(5). The Government must examine every representation independently and dispose of it with utmost promptitude.

The expression "as soon as may be" imposes a constitutional obligation demanding urgency rather than administrative convenience.

(Paras 14–17)

---

(ii) Delay Requires Reasonable Explanation

The Court emphasised that:

• no fixed limitation period exists;
• every delay need not be mechanically explained day-to-day;
• however, the explanation offered must satisfy the Court that there was no negligence, indifference or administrative lethargy.

In the present case, the Government failed to explain the delay after receiving the Collector's remarks as well as the overall period taken for disposal.

(Paras 21, 23, 25 & 26)

---

(iii) Representation after Confirmation

Following the Constitution Bench decision in K.M. Abdulla Kunhi, the Court reaffirmed that a representation filed after confirmation of detention remains fully maintainable. Confirmation of detention neither extinguishes the constitutional right nor absolves the Government of its continuing duty to consider the representation expeditiously.

(Paras 16, 17 & 24)

---

(iv) Consequence of Delay

The Court distinguished between:

• the validity of the original detention order; and
• the legality of continued detention.

Relying upon Abdul Nasar Adam Ismail, the Bench held that unexplained delay does not invalidate the original detention order but renders the continued detention unconstitutional.

(Paras 22–30)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

A preventive detenu possesses a continuing constitutional right under Article 22(5) to have his representation considered expeditiously, even after confirmation of the detention order. Where the Government fails to furnish a reasonable explanation for delay in considering such representation, the constitutional mandate stands violated, rendering the continued detention illegal, though the original order of detention is not thereby rendered void ab initio.

---

FINAL HOLDING

• Writ Petition allowed.
• Representation held to have been decided after unexplained and unreasonable delay.
• Continued detention declared unconstitutional.
• Preventive detention order and confirmation order quashed for the purpose of continued detention.
• Detenu directed to be released forthwith, subject to lawful custody in any other case.
• Other grounds of challenge left open, the writ having been allowed on the ground of unexplained delay alone.

(Paras 27–30)

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.

 

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)