Any Unexplained Delay In Deciding Detenu’s Representation Violates Constitutional Mandate Rendering Continued Preventive Detention Impermissible And Illegal: High Court of Andhra Prades
It is entirely compatible with what is enshrined in Constitution that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Cheemparthi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and three others in Writ Petition No. 34357 of 2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: APHC010665832025 that was pronounced just recently on July 1, 2026 in the exercise of its special original jurisdiction has minced absolutely just no words to hold indubitably that any unexplained delay by the government in deciding a detenu’s representation violates the constitutional mandate under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, rendering their continued preventive detention impermissible and illegal. We need to note that a Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Hon’ble Mr Justice Subhendu Samanta allowed a Habeas Corpus petition that had been filed by the wife of a detenu, setting aside the preventive detention order and directing his immediate release due to an unconstitutional 32-day delay in processing his representation. It must be also noted that the detenu, Cheemparthi Fakruddin was preventively detained under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.
At the very outset, this progressive, pragmatic, persuasive, peculiar and pertinent judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari for a Division Bench comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Subhendu Samanta sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “he detenu namely Cheemparthi Fakruddin, is the husband of the petitioner.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 3 disclosing that, “An order of detention vide File No.REV-CSECOPDL(PRCO)/2/2025-SA(C1)-KDPCO dated 02.09.2025 was passed under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act, 1986’) by the Collector & District Magistrate, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. The order of detention was passed considering eight criminal cases pending against him. The State Government accorded approval to the detention order vide G.O.RT.No.1675, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 11.09.2025. The Advisory Board submitted its report of the meeting dated 26.09.2025 that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. The detention order was confirmed by the State Government vide G.O.Rt.No.1976, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 24.10.2025 for a period of twelve months from the date of detention(Ex.P2). submitted its report of the meeting dated 26.09.2025 that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. The detention order was confirmed by the State Government vide G.O.Rt.No.1976, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 24.10.2025 for a period of twelve months from the date of detention(Ex.P2).”
As we see, the Division Bench reveals in para 4 that, “The order of detention, informed that the detenu could make representation, but any representation was not made initially. After the order of confirmation, representation dated 27.10.2025 was made to the Government for release of the detenu with the prayer to set aside the order of detention.”
As it turned out, the Division Bench enunciates in para 5 that, “The detenu’s representation dated 27.10.2025 was rejected by the State Government vide G.O.No.34, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 06.01.2026(page No.447 of the counter-affidavit), during pendency of the writ petition.”
Needless to say, the Division Bench states in para 6 that, “Challenging the aforesaid orders of detention the writ petition for Habeas Corpus has been filed to set aside those orders of detention and to release and set free, the detenu.”
Truly speaking, the Division Bench observes in para 14 that, “In K.M.Abdulla Kunhi (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the representation relates to the liberty of the individual, the highly cherished right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Clause (5) of Article 22 therefore casts a legal obligation on the Government to consider the representation as early as possible. It is a constitutional mandate, commanding the concerned authority to whom the detenu submits his representation to consider the representation and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. The words “as soon as may be” occurring in clause (5) of Article 22 reflects the concern of the framers that the representation should be expeditiously considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency without an avoidable delay.”
Plainly speaking, the Division Bench points out in para 23 that, “It is thus well settled in law that the detenu has a fundamental right to make the representation against his detention order and has a right for its consideration as expeditiously as possible with a sense of urgency without an avoidable delay. Though there is no hard and fast rule with respect to the time and delay but it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In case of delayed disposal of representation the delay must be explained and such explanation must stand the test of reasonableness to the satisfaction of the Court.”
Most significantly, most forthrightly, most commendably and so also most remarkably, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 24 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “The representation, even if not filed against the order of detention at the initial stage but is filed after the order of detention has been confirmed by the State still the detenu will have a right to make the representation which survives even after the confirmation of the detention order. The same principle for expeditious disposal of the representation without delay continues to be the fundamental right of the detenu in terms of the law as laid down in the aforesaid judgments in view of Articles 21 and 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. So delay in disposal of the representation even after the order of detention has been confirmed by the State must be justified by giving proper and sufficient explanation. If there is no sufficient explanation or a Court finds delay unreasonable and is not satisfied on the grounds for delay, the continued detention would become illegal. The order of detention on such ground would not be illegal or void but pursuant to that order of detention, the detenu cannot be detained any further. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal.”
Equally significant is that the Division Bench points out in para 25 stating that, “In the present case, the facts are not in dispute that the representation dated 27.10.2025 was made against the orders of detention after the order of confirmation by the State. Remarks were invited from the District Collector on 06.11.2025, which were received on 03.12.2025. The order on the representation was passed on 06.01.2026. There is delay of 32 days even from the date of the receipt of the remarks from the District Collector prior thereto from the date of representation considerable time was taken to call for the remarks which remarks were also send taking a long time. Taking such a long time for decision on representation in the matter of detention is most unreasonable. Decision has to be taken with promptness as the personal liberty of an individual is involved which is a fundamental right of an individual of which one cannot be deprived save by authority of law under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There may be, many times, genuine reasons for delayed decision but for such delays, there should be reasonable explanation to the satisfaction of the Court, which should be set forth in the order deciding the representation or in any case in the counter-affidavit filed with supporting material.”
Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 26 that, “So, in the present case, there is unexplained delay from the date of receipt of the remarks from the Collector on the representation of the petitioner. The continued detention of the detenu becomes impermissible pursuant to the order of the detention.”
As a corollary, it is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 27 that, “Since in our view, this petition deserves to be allowed on the aforesaid ground alone, we need not enter into the other ground of challenge to the order of detention.”
It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench hastens to add in para 28 noting that, “So far as ground No.(1) in Crime No.41 of 2025 of RSASTF Police Station, Tirupati, is concerned that the detenu was in judicial custody at the time of the detention order, if the judicial custody of the detenu continues in that case subject to that order the detenu shall not be in continued detention pursuant to the orders of detention as impugned in the present writ petition.”
It would be worthwhile to note that the Division Bench notes and holds in para 29 that, “We hold that the continued detention of the detenu is illegal and he is entitled for release.”
Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 30 that, “The writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order of preventive detention dated 02.09.2025 passed against the detenu, and the order of confirmation by the State by G.O.Rt.No.1976, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 24.10.2025. The detenu by name Shaik Simpathi @ Cheemparthi Fakruddin @ Goresab Fakruddin @ Pongodu @ Bongodu @ Thellodu, shall be released/set free forthwith on receipt of copy of this order.”
In a nutshell, this leading case has made it indubitably clear that any unexplained delay in deciding detenu’s representation violates constitutional mandate rendering preventive detention impermissible and illegal! Many case laws were cited to substantiate and solidify what was held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in this noteworthy judgment. It thus merits no reiteration that all the Courts must pay heed to what has been held in this notable judgment! No denying!
Author Bio
