Kantilal Hirji Shah vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors.

The Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger bench to examine the correctness of the decision in R. Paulsamy's case regarding the infringement of a detenu's rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that the delay in addressing the detenu's representation constituted a violation of his rights, while the Union of India contended that consulting subordinate authorities was necessary for effective decision-making. The Court noted that the officers had not made any decisions but merely sought reports, and ultimately upheld the actions of the authorities as reasonable and compliant with procedural requirements.