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)
