The Supreme Court ruled that a preventive detention order becomes illegal if the detaining authority fails to inform the detenu of the right to make a representation against detention. Critically, this procedural defect cannot be cured even if the detenu independently sends a representation. The right to be informed is a distinct constitutional obligation under Article 22(5). Non-communication of this right strikes at the validity of the detention order itself, rendering it void regardless of subsequent actions by the detenu.

Article 22(5) of the Constitution imposes two distinct mandatory duties on the detaining authority: (1) to communicate the grounds of detention to the detenu as soon as possible, and (2) to afford the detenu the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the detention. The Supreme Court has now clarified that informing the detenu of the right to make a representation is itself a separate, non-waivable constitutional obligation — not merely a procedural formality.

The doctrine here is rooted in the distinction between the right existing and the right being known. Even if the detenu factually sends a representation, this does not prove he was aware of the constitutional right to do so through formal communication from the authority. The Court treats the failure to communicate this right as going to the root of the detention order — a jurisdictional defect, not a curable irregularity.

This ruling follows the established line from A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, and Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India, where the Court consistently held that procedural safeguards in preventive detention statutes must be strictly construed. The underlying logic: since preventive detention is an exception to personal liberty under Article 21, its exercise must comply with every procedural protection granted under Article 22.

For CLAT PG, the key doctrinal point is that procedural compliance under Article 22(5) is mandatory and non-waivable — any breach is fatal to the detention order's validity.