Unexplained Delay in Deciding Detenu’s Representation Renders Preventive Detention Invalid

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, in Cheemparthi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and three others, Writ Petition No. 34357 of 2025, Neutral Citation No.: APHC010665832025, delivered on 01.07.2026, examined the constitutional requirement of prompt consideration of a detenu’s representation in preventive detention matters.

A Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Hon’ble Mr Justice Subhendu Samanta allowed a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the detenu’s wife and set aside the preventive detention order, holding that an unexplained delay of 32 days in dealing with the representation amounted to a violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the continued detention was declared impermissible and illegal.

Background of the Case

Parties and Detention Order

The detenu, Cheemparthi Fakruddin, husband of the petitioner, 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 (“the Act, 1986”).

An order of detention was issued by the Collector & District Magistrate, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, vide File No. REV-CSECOPDL(PRCO)/2/2025-SA(C1)-KDPCO dated 02.09.2025. The detention order was based on eight criminal cases that were stated to be pending against the detenu.

The sequence of events was as follows:

  • The detention order dated 02.09.2025 was passed under the Act, 1986.
  • The State Government granted approval through G.O.RT.No.1675, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 11.09.2025.
  • The Advisory Board, in its meeting held on 26.09.2025, opined that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu.
  • The State Government thereafter confirmed the detention by 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).

Representation by the Detenu

Initially, though the order of detention informed the detenu that he could submit a representation against his detention, no representation was filed at the first stage.

Subsequently, after the confirmation order was issued on 24.10.2025, the detenu submitted a representation dated 27.10.2025 to the Government, seeking revocation of the detention and release from custody.

During the pendency of the writ petition:

  • The representation dated 27.10.2025 was ultimately rejected by the State Government through G.O.No.34, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 06.01.2026 (as referred to at page 447 of the counter-affidavit).

The petitioner approached the High Court through a Habeas Corpus petition challenging:

  1. The original order of preventive detention dated 02.09.2025; and
  2. The order of confirmation dated 24.10.2025;

and sought the release of the detenu on the ground that his constitutional rights had been violated.

Article 21 and Article 22(5)

The Division Bench examined the constitutional mandate under:

  • Article 21 – which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and
  • Article 22(5) – which specifically governs preventive detention and prescribes that:
    • The detenu must be informed of the grounds of detention as soon as may be; and
    • The detenu must be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.

The Court reiterated that preventive detention is a serious encroachment on personal liberty, and therefore the procedural safeguards in Article 22(5) must be strictly observed.

Reliance on K.M. Abdulla Kunhi

Referring to the decision in K.M.Abdulla Kunhi, the Division Bench emphasized: