Holding that an unexplained delay in deciding a detenu’s representation breaches constitutional imperatives under Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution of India, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Sunitha Gandham, has quashed a preventive detention order and directed the immediate release of the detenu. The Division Bench ruled that while the initial detention order was valid when made, the four-month delay by state authorities in disposing of the representation rendered the detenu’s continued detention impermissible and unlawful.
Background of the Case
The writ petition for Habeas Corpus was filed by Smt. Talasila Santhi, challenging the preventive detention of her husband, Talasila Venkata Narasimha Rao. The Collector and District Magistrate, S.P.S. Nellore District, had passed the detention order on January 19, 2026, under Section 3(1) and (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.
The detention order was grounded on five pending criminal cases registered at Jaladanki Police Station: Crime No. 52 of 2024, Crime No. 45 of 2025, Crime No. 73 of 2025, Crime No. 76 of 2025, and Crime No. 116 of 2025. Following a report from the Advisory Board dated February 17, 2026, the State Government confirmed the detention for twelve months through G.O.Rt.No. 546 on March 11, 2026.
Subsequently, a representation submitted on behalf of the detenu on March 1, 2026, was rejected by the State Government via G.O.Rt.No. 1384 on July 14, 2026. A second representation dated July 28, 2026, was likewise turned down via G.O.Rt.No. 1796 on September 15, 2026, prompting amendments to the writ petition to challenge these rejection orders as well.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, representing Sri M.M.M. Srinivasa Rao, argued that the detenu had secured regular bail in Crime No. 116 of 2025 on February 6, 2026. This vital development and the accompanying bail conditions were never considered by the State Government while issuing the confirmation order on March 11, 2026. Counsel further contended that the detenu submitted a representation on March 1, 2026, yet the District Collector forwarded remarks to the State Government only on July 7, 2026—over four months later—culminating in an order of rejection on July 14, 2026. This unexplained and inordinate delay, counsel submitted, vitiated the continued detention.
Opposing the petition, Sri Akula Venkata Sai Jagadeesh, Assistant Government Pleader, argued that the detaining authority was fully aware that the detenu was in judicial custody when the detention order was framed and had recorded clear satisfaction that there was a possibility of him being released on bail and engaging in activities prejudicial to public order. While conceding that the March 1, 2026 representation was not considered prior to confirmation, he submitted that it was later rejected on July 14, 2026, and that the delay occurred because the detaining authority submitted its remarks belatedly on July 7, 2026. He also noted that the subsequent representation was rejected on September 15, 2026, upon taking note of the February 6, 2026 bail order.
The Court’s Analysis
Addressing the initial validity of the detention order, the Court observed that the detaining authority had taken note of the detenu’s judicial custody and properly satisfied itself of the likelihood of his release on bail and recurrence of prejudicial acts. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India and Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) v. Dimple Happy Dhakad (2019), the bench affirmed that an order of preventive detention can validly be passed against an incarcerated person if such awareness and satisfaction are recorded. Consequently, the initial detention order suffered from no illegality on the date it was issued.
However, the Court highlighted serious procedural and constitutional lapses that occurred thereafter. The bench observed that the confirming authority failed to independently evaluate the grant of regular bail on February 6, 2026, along with its conditions, and did not examine the detenu’s representation dated March 1, 2026, prior to confirmation.
Rejecting the State’s stance that the detenu had not submitted the bail order earlier, the Court reiterated the constitutional burden on state authorities:
“In the preventive detention matters, like the present one, the burden is on the detaining authority/confirming order to justify its order on consideration of the material. It is a matter of deprivation of personal liberty of a person, which is the most valuable fundamental right guaranteed by the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is not for the detenu, but for the sponsoring authority to place complete relevant material before the detaining authority and the confirming authority.”
Turning to the question of delay, the bench reviewed established legal precedents, citing Rama Dhondu Borade v. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police (1989), where the Supreme Court held that unreasonable delay and unsatisfactory explanation vitiate continued detention.
The Court further examined the Constitution Bench judgment in K.M. Abdulla Kunhi and B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union of India and others (1991), highlighting the duty cast upon the executive by Article 22(5) of the Constitution:
“The representation relates to the liberty of the individual, the highly cherished right enshrined in Article 21 of our Constitution. 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.”
“The requirement however, is that there should not be supine indifference, slackness or callous attitude in considering the representation. 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.”
The Court also referred to Rashid Kapadia v. Medha Gadgil (2012), wherein an unexplained fifteen-day delay on the part of the sponsoring authority in furnishing remarks proved fatal to detention, as well as the High Court’s recent ruling in Cheemparthi Shaheen v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (2026), reiterating:
“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.”
Applying these principles to the facts before it, the bench held that the State had offered no acceptable reason for the gap between March 1, 2026 and July 7, 2026, observing:
“The explanation that the delay occurred on account of the belated submission of remarks does not, by itself, satisfactorily explain the delay, particularly when the representation concerns the personal liberty of the detenu and is required to be dealt with as soon as possible. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay, the continued detention of the detenu cannot be sustained.”
Decision of the Court
The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the preventive detention order dated January 19, 2026, the government confirmation order dated March 11, 2026, and the subsequent rejection orders dated July 14, 2026, and September 15, 2026.
The Court directed that the detenu, Talasila Venkata Narasimha Rao, be released forthwith, provided his custody is not required in any other pending criminal case.
Case Title: Smt. Talasila Santhi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 10194 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Sunitha Gandham
Date: September 24, 2026
