Unexplained delay in deciding a detenu’s representation vitiates continued preventive detention.

The second respondent detained Muthumani as a “Goonda” under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by an order dated 22 June 2026.

In his habeas corpus petition challenging the detention, the petitioner principally argued that the Government had unexplainedly delayed deciding his representation.

The representation was dated 25 June 2026, received by the Government on 6 July 2026, and rejected on 17 July 2026; the State’s pro forma showed an unexplained eight-day delay in processing it.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the detention order was lawful and that any delay caused no prejudice.

Whether the unexplained eight-day delay in considering and disposing of the detenu’s representation violated the constitutional requirement under Article 22(5) and vitiated the continued detention.

Whether the detention order should be quashed and the detenu released as a consequence of that delay.

Article 22(5) of the Constitution requires a detenu’s representation to be considered and disposed of “as soon as may be,” with urgency and without avoidable delay; an unexplained delay breaches that constitutional imperative and renders continued detention impermissible.

Relying on Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 1 SCC 417, the Court stated that the number of days of delay is not decisive; the relevant question is whether the delay has been properly explained.

It also relied on Ummu Sabeena v. State of Kerala, 2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC, concerning the constitutional importance of procedural safeguards and prompt consideration of a representation.

The Court examined the representation’s processing dates and the Government’s pro forma, which disclosed an eight-day delay in the relevant processing columns.

Applying Article 22(5) and the cited precedents, it found that the authorities had offered no acceptable explanation for the delay. The State’s submission that the delay caused no prejudice did not overcome the constitutional requirement of prompt consideration; the unexplained delay therefore vitiated the continued detention.

It directed that Muthumani be released forthwith unless his detention was required in connection with another case.