Failure to inform detenu of right to represent to detaining authority and Central Government vitiates detention.

The Petitioner was involved in three successive FIRs between January 2024 and January 2026 for alleged offences under the UAPA and Arms Act

While his bail application for the third FIR was pending, Respondent No. 1 (Detaining Authority) issued a preventive detention order dated 20.02.2026 under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act (NSA), 1980

This order was subsequently approved and confirmed by the State Government

The Petitioner challenged the detention via a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that he was not informed of his right to represent his case to the Detaining Authority and was belatedly informed of his right to represent to the Central Government

1. Whether the failure of the Detaining Authority to inform the detenu of his right to make a representation to the Detaining Authority himself constitutes a violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution

2. Whether the delayed communication (17 days after grounds were served) regarding the detenu's right to make a representation to the Central Government violates the "earliest opportunity" mandate under Article 22(5)

The court primarily applied Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees a detenu the right to be informed of the grounds of detention and the "earliest opportunity" to make a representation

It relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India, which established that the right to representation includes a corresponding obligation on the authority to inform the detenu of such rights to all competent authorities, including the Detaining Authority

The court further applied the Full Bench ruling in Konsam Brojen Singh v. State of Manipur, which affirmed that these principles apply specifically to the National Security Act, 1980

The court found that although the grounds of detention were served on 24.02.2026, they only mentioned the right to represent to the State Government and the Advisory Board, omitting the right to represent to the Detaining Authority

Following Kamleshkumar, the court reasoned that since Section 14 of the NSA allows a Detaining Authority to revoke or modify an order for a period of 12 days (prior to approval), the detenu must be informed of the right to approach said authority during that window

Regarding the representation to the Central Government, the court noted that the detenu was only informed on 12.03.2026, after the Ministry of Home Affairs alerted the State

This delay was deemed a failure to provide the "earliest opportunity" for representation required by Article 22(5), thereby vitiating the subjective satisfaction and the procedural legality of the detention

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the detention order dated 20.02.2026 (including the approval and confirmation orders), and directed that the Petitioner be set at liberty forthwith