Supreme Court Reinforces Procedural Safeguards in Preventive Detention: The Article 22(5) Mandate

The Bench emphasized that administrative lethargy or bureaucratic delays cannot be excused when personal liberty is at stake. Any delay in considering the representation must be explained by the authorities with valid reasons. In the absence of such an explanation, the detention becomes illegal, even if the initial grounds for detention were valid. This ruling serves as a check on executive overreach and ensures that the 'procedure established by law' is not reduced to a mere formality. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the obligation of the government is twofold: first, to provide the detenu with the earliest opportunity to make a representation, and second, to consider and decide upon that representation with reasonable expedition. Failure on either count constitutes a violation of the constitutional mandate, necessitating the release of the detenu. UPSC Relevance: This judgment is a vital case study for questions regarding the balance between national security and individual liberty in GS Paper II. It can be used to illustrate the 'due process' aspect of Article 21 and the specific procedural safeguards under Article 22(5). Aspirants can cite this to discuss judicial activism in protecting fundamental rights against administrative delays.