Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, wife of detenu Cheemparthi Fakruddin, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the preventive detention order passed under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. The Collector and District Magistrate, YSR Kadapa District passed detention order on 02.09.2025 based on eight criminal cases pending against the detenu. The State Government approved the order on 11.09.2025, the Advisory Board reported sufficient cause on 26.09.2025, and the Government confirmed detention for twelve months on 24.10.2025. The petitioner submitted a representation on 27.10.2025, which was rejected by G.O.No.34 dated 06.01.2026 during pendency of the writ petition. The petitioner raised two grounds: first, that the representation was rejected after long unexplained delay, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution; second, that the detenu was in judicial custody in Crime No.41 of 2025 and the detaining authority did not record satisfaction about likelihood of release on bail. The respondents submitted that the representation was forwarded to the Collector on 06.11.2025, remarks received on 03.12.2025, and rejection order passed on 06.01.2026, but no explanation was given for intermediate delays. The Court considered the principles laid down in K.M. Abdulla Kunhi and other cases, emphasizing that Article 22(5) casts a constitutional obligation on the Government to consider the representation expeditiously, and unexplained delay renders continued detention illegal. The Court also noted that consideration of representation after confirmation does not by itself invalidate the confirmation if there is no delay. The provided text does not include the final operative order.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Preventive Detention - Article 22(5) - Representation must be considered expeditiously; unexplained delay renders continued detention illegal - Constitution of India, Article 22(5) - The detenu's representation dated 27.10.2025 was rejected on 06.01.2026 with no explanation for delay; Court relied on K.M. Abdulla Kunhi which held that Articles 21 and 22(5) cast constitutional obligation to dispose representation with urgency; Held that unexplained delay breaches constitutional imperative and continued detention becomes impermissible (Paras 14-15).
B) Preventive Detention - Consideration of Representation After Confirmation - No Requirement to Consider Before Confirmation - Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, Section Not mentioned - The Government may consider representation after confirmation; if no delay in consideration, confirmation not invalidated - Held that confirmation cannot be invalidated solely because representation considered subsequent to confirmation (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether unexplained delay in considering the detenu's representation dated 27.10.2025 vitiated continued detention; Whether detention order invalid for lack of satisfaction regarding likelihood of detenu being released on bail in Crime No.41 of 2025 while in judicial custody
Law Points
- Article 22(5) mandates expeditious consideration of representation
- Unexplained delay in representation disposal renders continued detention illegal
- Consideration after confirmation not per se invalid
- Detaining authority must record satisfaction of likelihood of bail if detenu in judicial custody
Case Details
WRIT PETITION No.34357 of 2025
Ravi Nath Tilhari, Subhendu Samanta
D. Purna Chandra Reddy (for petitioner), Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, Government Pleader attached to Additional Advocate General (for respondents)
The State of Andhra Pradesh, The Collector and District Magistrate YSR Kadapa District, The Superintendent of Police YSR Kadapa District, The Superintendent Central Prison Kadapa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus to challenge preventive detention order.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought production of detenu Cheemparthi Fakruddin before the Court and his release after declaring detention order dated 02.09.2025 and confirmation order dated 24.10.2025 illegal.
Filing Reason
Detenu was detained under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 based on eight criminal cases; after confirmation, representation was made and rejected with alleged delay; petitioner challenged detention on grounds of delay in deciding representation and absence of satisfaction regarding likelihood of bail.
Previous Decisions
Detention order passed 02.09.2025; State Government approval on 11.09.2025; Advisory Board reported sufficient cause on 26.09.2025; State Government confirmed detention for 12 months on 24.10.2025; representation dated 27.10.2025 rejected on 06.01.2026.
Issues
Whether the State Government's unexplained delay in considering the detenu's representation dated 27.10.2025 (rejected on 06.01.2026) violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution and rendered continued detention illegal.
Whether the detention order was invalid because the detaining authority did not record satisfaction that the detenu, who was in judicial custody in Crime No.41 of 2025, was likely to be released on bail.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that representation dated 27.10.2025 was rejected only on 06.01.2026 with long unexplained delay, violating constitutional mandate for expeditious consideration under Article 22(5).
Petitioner further argued that detention order lacked required satisfaction by Collector regarding likelihood of detenu being released on bail in Crime No.41 of 2025 while he was in judicial custody.
Respondents submitted that representation was forwarded to District Collector on 06.11.2025, remarks received on 03.12.2025, and rejection order passed on 06.01.2026; no explanation for intermediate delays; argued delay may affect continued detention but not initial order.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, the Government is under constitutional obligation to consider a detenu's representation expeditiously; unexplained delay in disposal of representation renders continued detention illegal; however, consideration of representation after confirmation of detention does not by itself invalidate the confirmation if there is no delay in consideration.
Judgment Excerpts
The representation relates to the liberty of the individual, the highly cherished right enshrined in Article 21 of our Constitution. Clause (5) of Article 22 therefore, casts a legal obligation on the government to consider the representation as early as possible.
So long as the representation is independently considered by the Government and if there is no delay in considering the representation, the fact that it is considered after the confirmation of the detention makes little difference on the validity of the detention or confirmation of the detention.
Procedural History
Detention order passed by Collector on 02.09.2025; approved by State Government on 11.09.2025; Advisory Board reported sufficient cause on 26.09.2025; State Government confirmed detention for 12 months on 24.10.2025; representation submitted on 27.10.2025; forwarded to Collector on 06.11.2025; Collector's remarks received on 03.12.2025; representation rejected on 06.01.2026 during pendency of writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986:
- Constitution of India: Article 21, Article 22(5), Article 226
