The obligation to consider the detenue's representation independently by the Detaining Authority, Advisory Board, and the State/Central Government, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J. - This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the detenue who is presently detained in Central Prison, Parapanna Agrahara, Bengaluru, assailing the order of detention dtd. 17/3/2022 passed by respondent no.2 and the order of confirmation dtd. 5/5/2022 passed by respondent no.1 as per Annexures-A & F, respectively, and further to direct respondent no.3 to release the detenue forthwith.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the detenue and the learned SPP-2 appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3, and also perused the material available on record.

3. Facts leading to filing of this petition briefly narrated are, an order of detention under Sec. 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') was passed on 17/3/2022 by respondent no.2 and the grounds of detention was also served on the detenue on the very same day. Thereafter, respondent no.2 had forwarded the order of detention along with the grounds of detention to respondent no.1 for confirmation on 24/3/2022. The detenue was produced before the Advisory Board on 20/4/2022 and on the said date, the detenue has also submitted a representation to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board had forwarded a report to respondent no.1 stating that it was satisfied that there were sufficient grounds for passing the order of detention against the detenue and upon receipt of the same, respondent no.1 has passed the order of confirmation on 5/5/2022. The detenue is before this Court challenging the order of detention and the order of confirmation dtd. 17/3/2022 & 5/5/2022, respectively.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the detenue submits that the detention order passed against the detenue is illegal and arbitrary, and the copy of the documents which were relied upon by the Detaining Authority was not properly served on the detenue and the said documents were also not legible. He submits that the representation submitted by the detenue was not considered by the Advisory Board, and therefore, his detention amounts to violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

5. Per contra, learned SPP-2 appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the detention order has been passed after following all the requisite procedures and the detenue is a hard core criminal involved in many criminal cases involving offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He submits that the detenue has made a representation only to the Advisory Board and no representation has been made by him to the Detaining Authority or to the State Government and the representation submitted by the detenue to the Advisory Board has been considered and rejected in its report forwarded to the State Government, and accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

6. The material on record would go to show that the detenue was produced before the Advisory Board on 20/4/2022 and on the said date, he has submitted a representation to the Advisory Board which is available on record at Annexure-E. A detailed representation running to 10 pages was submitted by the detenue. Learned SPP-2 has submitted that the said representation was considered by the Advisory Board and it has been rejected, and he refers to paragraph 13 of the report of the Advisory Board dtd. 22/4/2022 which is forwarded to the State Government. Paragraph 13 of the report of the Advisory Board dtd. 22/4/2022 reads as under:

"13. In the representation that the detenue has given, he may have claimed to be innocent and put forth the hardship that his family suffers if his detention is continued, but the interest and health of the society assumes significance more than individual's hardship. The detenue has also pointed out some lacunae in investigation. We need not consider those aspects, for the concerned courts where trial is being held have to rule upon those is