The Judges also noted that the Union Government had not

considered the representation of the detenu expeditiously and diligently. It called upon the Centre to explain as to when the representation had reached the authority, when it was considered and the result finally communicated to the detenu. "The continued detention will be held to be illegal and bad in law, for not considering the representation of the detenu expeditiously and diligently. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law, ought to be quashed and set aside," the judges further noted in their order delivered recently. "The requirement in law 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 constitutional imperative and it would render continued detention impermissible and illegal. This has been emphasised and reemphasised by a series of decisions of this Court." "In the facts of the present case, due to complete failure on the part of Respondent 3 (Union government) to explain the delay, obviously there is a non-compliance with the constitutional safeguard provided under Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The reply of the third Respondent discloses callous attitude while dealing with the representation," the judges remarked.