Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati considered a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of habeas corpus against a preventive detention order passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. The petitioner was the wife of the detenu, Vandalam Balu Baddar, who was detained under G.O.Rt.No.708 dated 09.07.2025, which was confirmed by G.O.Rt.No.1231 dated 10.10.2025 for twelve months. The detention order was based on three pending criminal cases against the detenu. The detenu submitted a representation dated 05.01.2026 seeking revocation of the detention order and his release. The Government received the representation on 07.01.2026 but did not decide it until 18.03.2026, when it was rejected. Aggrieved by the non-consideration, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the detention order and confirmation. During the pendency of the writ petition, the representation was rejected. The petitioner contended that there was inordinate and unexplained delay in deciding the representation, and neither the rejection order nor the counter affidavit furnished any explanation for the delay. The respondents, while asserting that there was no abnormal delay, fairly admitted that no explanation was given for the time taken except the dates of receipt and rejection. The core legal issue was whether the unexplained delay in considering the detenu's representation violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution and thereby vitiated the continued detention. A related question was whether a representation made after confirmation of the detention order still required expeditious and independent consideration. The Court relied on the Constitution Bench decision in K.M.Abdulla Kunhi and B.L.Abdul Khader v. Union of India, which held that a representation relates to the liberty of the individual, a highly cherished right under Article 21, and that clause (5) of Article 22 casts a legal obligation on the Government to consider the representation as early as possible. The words 'as soon as may be' reflect the concern of the framers that the representation should be expeditiously considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency without avoidable delay. Any unexplained delay in disposal would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and render continued detention impermissible and illegal. The Court also referred to Cheemparthi Shaheen v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which reiterated that a detenu has a fundamental right to make a representation and to have it considered expeditiously, even if filed after confirmation of detention. The Court observed that there is no hard and fast rule for time, but the delay must be explained and the explanation must stand the test of reasonableness. Applying these principles, the High Court noted that the representation dated 05.01.2026 was received on 07.01.2026 and rejected only on 18.03.2026, a delay of more than two months, with no explanation whatsoever in the rejection order or the counter affidavit. The Court found that this unexplained delay breached the constitutional mandate under Article 22(5) and rendered the continued detention illegal. The exact operative direction was not included in the extracted judgment text, but the reasoning clearly indicated that the continued detention could not be sustained. The judgment emphasized that courts stand guard over the liberty of citizens and that unexplained delay in considering a detenu's representation amounts to supine indifference and callous attitude, vitiating the detention.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Preventive Detention - Expeditious Consideration of Representation - Constitution of India, Article 22(5), Article 21 - The detenu submitted a representation dated 05.01.2026, received by the Government on 07.01.2026, but it was rejected only on 18.03.2026 with no explanation for the delay in either the rejection order or the counter affidavit - The High Court relied on K.M.Abdulla Kunhi and Cheemparthi Shaheen and held that unexplained delay breached the constitutional mandate and rendered continued detention illegal (Paras 8-13). B) Constitutional Law - Right to Liberty - Effect of Unexplained Delay - Constitution of India, Article 21 - A representation relates to the liberty of the individual, a highly cherished right; the words 'as soon as may be' in Article 22(5) require the Government to consider and dispose of the representation with urgency and without avoidable delay - Held that any unexplained delay amounts to supine indifference and renders continued detention impermissible (Paras 9-10). C) Preventive Detention - Post-Confirmation Representation - Consideration by Government - Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, Sections 3(1), 8, 11 - Even if a representation is made after confirmation of the detention order, the Government is still obligated to consider it independently and expeditiously; confirmation does not preclude revocation under Section 11 - The Court held that delayed consideration after confirmation can vitiate continued detention when no explanation is offered (Paras 11-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether unexplained delay in considering the detenu's representation dated 05.01.2026 violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution and vitiated the continued detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in the provided judgment text; the High Court held that unexplained delay in considering the detenu's representation rendered the continued detention illegal and impermissible.
Law Points
- Unexplained delay in disposal of representation under Article 22(5) Constitution renders continued detention illegal
- Duty to consider representation expeditiously with urgency
- No hard and fast rule for time but explanation must be reasonable
- Representation after confirmation of detention still requires independent expeditious consideration
