Preventive detention — Right to representation — Obligation of detaining authority — Non-consideration — Effect. The constitutional right to make a representation against an order of preventive detention under Article 22(5) necessarily includes the right to independent and expeditious consideration of such representation by the detaining authority. Mere forwarding of the representation to the Advisory Board, without independent consideration by the Government after approval of detention, is fatal to the detention. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 19, 25)

AP HIGH COURT 

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 22(5) — Preventive detention — Right to representation — Obligation of detaining authority — Non-consideration — Effect.
The constitutional right to make a representation against an order of preventive detention under Article 22(5) necessarily includes the right to independent and expeditious consideration of such representation by the detaining authority. Mere forwarding of the representation to the Advisory Board, without independent consideration by the Government after approval of detention, is fatal to the detention.
(Paras 9, 10, 12, 19, 25)

Preventive detention — Advisory Board — Distinct role — Not a substitute for Government consideration.
The consideration of a representation by the Advisory Board is not a substitute for consideration by the appropriate Government. The scope of consideration by the Government and by the Advisory Board is distinct and independent, and both are constitutionally mandated.
(Paras 12, 16, 17, 18)

A.P. Prevention of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drugs Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 — Ss. 3 & 10 — Interpretation consistent with Article 22.
Section 10 of the Act, requiring forwarding of representations to the Advisory Board, does not dispense with the obligation of the Government to independently consider the representation. Any interpretation treating the Government as a mere post office would be unconstitutional and violative of Article 22(5).
(Paras 20, 23, 24)

Preventive detention — Approval by Government — Detaining authority — Identity.
Once the Government approves an order of detention passed by a specially empowered officer, the State Government becomes the detaining authority, and is constitutionally bound to consider any representation addressed to it, irrespective of the stage of the detention process.
(Paras 19, 21, 25)

Preventive detention — Violation of constitutional safeguards — Consequence.
Failure of the State Government to consider the representation of the detenue independently renders the order of detention, approval order, and confirmation order illegal, entitling the detenue to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
(Para 25)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS (Paragraph-wise)

1. Order of Detention
   The District Collector, Chittoor passed an order of preventive detention against the husband of the petitioner on 05.06.2025, branding him as a “Bootlegger” under the Act, on the basis of his alleged involvement in five criminal cases. (Para 2)

2. Government Approval and Confirmation
   The State Government approved the detention on 11.06.2025 and, after receipt of the Advisory Board’s opinion dated 27.06.2025, confirmed the detention for 12 months by G.O.Rt.No.1326 dated 14.07.2025. (Paras 2, 3)

3. Representation by the Petitioner
   The petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.06.2025, received on 19.06.2025, addressed to the State Government. (Para 3)

4. Handling of Representation
   The representation was not considered by the State Government and was merely forwarded to the Advisory Board. (Paras 3, 7)

5. Ground Pressed Before Court
   Though several grounds were raised, the petitioner pressed only one ground—non-consideration of the representation by the Government. (Para 5)

6. Admission by the State
   The Government Pleader conceded that the representation had not been independently considered by the Government. (Para 7)

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. Scope of Article 22(5)
   Article 22(5) mandates not only an opportunity to make a representation but also a corresponding obligation on the detaining authority to consider the representation at the earliest. This obligation is implicit and non-negotiable. (Paras 9, 10)

2. Dual Safeguards under Article 22
   The Constitution provides two parallel safeguards:
   (i) consideration of the representation by the Government; and
   (ii) consideration by the Advisory Board.
   These safeguards operate in different fields and for different purposes. (Paras 12, 16)

3. Identity of Detaining Authority
   Upon approval of detention by the Government, the State Government assumes the role of detaining authority, regardless of who initially passed the detention order. (Paras 19, 21)

4. Section 10 of the Act — Harmonious Construction
   Section 10 cannot be interpreted to dilute constitutional guarantees. It must be harmonized with Article 22(5), requiring prior or independent consideration by the Government, followed by reference to the Advisory Board. (Paras 20, 24)

5. Effect of Non-consideration
   Non-consideration of the representation by the Government strikes at the root of the detention, rendering the entire chain of detention proceedings void. (Para 25)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

After approval of a preventive detention order, the State Government becomes the detaining authority and is constitutionally obliged under Article 22(5) to independently and expeditiously consider any representation made by or on behalf of the detenue; mere forwarding of such representation to the Advisory Board without Governmental consideration violates the constitutional scheme and renders the detention order, approval, and confirmation illegal.