Leave granted.

The question for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the detention order and its approval thereafter would stand vitiated on account of the belated consideration of the detenu’s representation by the State Government after the approval of the detention order, which was done based upon a report received from the detaining authority enclosing not only the representation made to it, but also the decision taken on the same.

We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent(s). We have also perused the relevant records.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance on the decisions rendered by this Court in Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal (1970) 1 SCC 219 and in Sk. Abdul Karim & Ors. v. State of West Bengal (1969) 1 SCC 433, in support of his contentions.

Admittedly, a detention order against the appellant, was passed by the District Magistrate under the National Security Act, 1980 on 02.07.2025. Subsequently, the appellant made two representations, one to the detaining authority and another to the State Government as can be seen from the document filed by the respondent(s) dated 07.07.2025 which is a communication sent by the Superintendent, District Jail, Mathura to the District Magistrate, Mathura.

On 12.07.2025, the State Government approved the detention order dated 02.07.2025 forwarded to it by the detaining authority. On 23.07.2025, a communication has been sent by the State Government to the District Magistrate asking it to inform the detenu on the rejection of his representation to the State Government.

The facts referred to above would clearly show that the detenu’s representation was not sent to the State Government immediately, and that it was rejected belatedly.

A duty is imposed on the concerned Government to consider the representation of the detenu at the earliest point of time. In the present case, the detaining authority did not forward the representation to the State Government immediately, though it had actually been sent to the detaining authority by the prison authority at the earliest point of time.

The State Government on its part has approved the detention order and only thereafter, considered the detenu’s representation. The representation of the detenu made to the State Government has nothing to do with either the detaining authority or even the Advisory Board. Unfortunately, the aforesaid action of considering the representation was not forthcoming at the earliest point of time. This would vitiate both the detention order and its subsequent approval.

In such view of the matter, both the detention order and its subsequent approval shall stand quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The appellant shall be released forthwith.

The appeal stands allowed, accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.