Failure to inform a detenue of the right to represent before the detaining authority invalidates preventive detention.

The Petitioner challenged the detention order No. DMR/PSA/08 of 2025 dated 05.06.2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Rajouri, under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.

The order was issued to prevent the Petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order following his release on bail in FIR No. 125/2020.

The Petitioner contended that he was not furnished with the complete material used for the grounds of detention and, crucially, was never informed of his legal right to make a representation specifically to the detaining authority, rather than just the Government.

1. Whether the failure of the detaining authority to inform the detenue of his right to make a representation to the detaining authority itself (in addition to the Government) violates constitutional safeguards.

2. Whether the impugned detention order is sustainable in law if such communication is absent.

Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees a detenue the right to make an effective representation against detention.

A.C. Razia v. Govt. of Kerala (2004) and Ankit Ashok Jalan v. Union of India (2020), establishing that both the Government and the detaining authority have independent powers to consider representations.

The Division Bench ruling in Tariq Ahmed Dar v. State of J&K (2017), which, following Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India (1995), held that non-communication of the right to represent to the detaining authority constitutes an infraction of a valuable constitutional right and invalidates the detention.

The court examined the detention record and the notice dated 05.06.2025 served upon the Petitioner.

It observed that while the notice informed the Petitioner of his right to represent to the Government, it was silent regarding his right to approach the detaining authority.

The court reasoned that since the detaining authority is a distinct forum for redressal—vested with the power to independently review and revoke the order before it is approved by the Government—the failure to disclose this option to the Petitioner effectively stripped him of an integral part of his rights under Article 22(5).

Because this procedural safeguard is mandatory, its omission rendered the subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate secondary to the procedural illegality.

The High Court quashed detention order No. DMR/PSA/08 of 2025 and directed the immediate release of the Petitioner from preventive custody, provided he is not required in any other case.