Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Mohammad Nawaz, Rajesh Rai K., JJ.
Shrenika – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 201957/2023 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 31-08-2023
GOONDA ACT - Preventive Detention - Sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 10, 11, 12 - The court analyzed the provisions of the Goonda Act, particularly focusing on the procedural requirements for preventive detention. It emphasized that the initial detention order must not exceed three months without subsequent orders for extension, and that the detainee must be provided with translated and legible copies of the grounds for detention to ensure the right to make an effective representation. The court found that the authorities failed to comply with these requirements, leading to the quashing of the detention orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, wife of the detenue, challenged the detention order of her husband under the Goonda Act, which was initially for 12 months. The order was based on a proposal from the police citing the detenue's alleged involvement in multiple criminal activities. The petitioner argued that the detention was illegal due to procedural lapses, including the failure to provide necessary documents and translations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention orders were not sustainable due to significant procedural violations, including the failure to provide translated and legible documents to the detenue, which infringed upon his right to make an effective representation. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements of the Goonda Act.
Issues: Whether the detention orders passed under the Goonda Act were sustainable in light of the procedural violations and the rights of the detenue.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the procedural safeguards provided under the Goonda Act are essential to protect the personal liberty of individuals. The failure to provide translated and legible documents, as well as the improper extension of the detention period, constituted a violation of the law and the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the detention orders, and directed the immediate release of the detenue unless he was required in other cases.
JUDGMENT
RAJESH RAI K, J. - Petitioner, wife of Sri.Huchappa @ Dhanaraj Kalebag, (for short 'detenue') has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order of detention of her husband under the provisions of The Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Gundas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "Goonda Act") dtd. 10/4/2023 passed by the District Commissioner and District Magistrate, Vijayapur (respondent No.2) in case bearing No.MAG-CR-24/2021- 22, as well as the confirmation order passed by the State of Karnataka represented by its Secretary, Department of Internal Administration (Law and Order), (respondent No.1) vide order bearing No.HD 211 SST 2023 dtd. 19/4/2023 for a period of 12 months.
2. The undisputed facts of the case would reveal that the petitioner is the wife of Sri.Huchappa @ Dhanaraj Kalebag i.e., detenue and they both are the residents of Ambedkar Nagar, Indi. It has been stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police Indi, Sub Division, Indi, submitted a report bearing No.1702:2022 dtd. 4/10/2022 to the Superintendent of Police, Vijayapur for accepting the proposal of Circle Inspector, Indi, for invoking the provisions of Goonda Act against the detenue. Based on the same, the respondent No.3 i.e., Superintendent of Police submitted a proposal to the Deputy Commissioner and the District Magistrate, Vijayapur, in case bearing No.16/DCRB/169/2023 dtd. 8/4/2023 to invoke the provisions of Goonda Act, 1985, against the detenue for preventive detention under Sec. 2(g) of the said Act. Accordingly, respondent No.3 i.e., sponsoring authority along with the proposal, submitted compilation of documents containing the particulars of the detenue i.e., social, educational, economical background and the particulars of the cases in which the detenue is allegedly involved. On the basis of the said proposal submitted by respondent No.3 i.e., sponsoring authority, the respondent No.2 exercising the powers under Sec. 3(1) of the Goonda Act passed an order dtd. 10/4/2023 in case bearing No. MAG/CR- 24/2021-22 as per Annexure-A, detaining the detenue for an initial period of 12 days starting from the date of passing of the order. That on 10/4/2023 the detaining authority supplied the documents to the detenue and respondent No.2 also intimated the detenue about the detention order dtd. 10/4/2023, that he can prefer an appeal to the State Government and Advisory Board against the order of preventive detention. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 vide letter bearing No. MAG/CR-24/2021- 22 dtd. 11/4/2021 forwarded the proposal to respondent No.1 for confirmation/approval of the order of preventive detention of the detenue and based on such proposal, the respondent No.1 i.e., State Government confirmed the order of detention passed by respondent No.2 vide order dtd. 19/4/2023 bearing order No.HD 211 SST 2023 as per Annexure-D and thereby directed the detenue to be kept in detention for a period of 12 months starting from 10/4/2023. The said order of detention is challenged under this writ petition. However, before filing this writ petition, the petitioner has filed WP.(HC) No. 200006/2023 before the co-ordinate bench of this Court, which came to be disposed of by order dtd. 20/6/2023 reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate writ petition against the detention orders. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
3. We have heard Sri.S.S.Mamadapur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S.Ismail Zabiulla, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for Sri.Mallikarjun C.Basareddy, Government Advocate appearing for respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned orders at Annexures-A and D passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 being capricious, illegal and arbitrary are liable to be quashed. He would further contend that invocation of the provisions of Goonda Act
The court established that compliance with procedural requirements under the Goonda Act is mandatory for the validity of detention orders, and failure to provide necessary documentation and translati....
Procedural requirements, including providing legible documents to the detenu and timely submission of materials to the Advisory Board, must be strictly complied with in preventive detention cases.
Detention orders must consider all relevant factors, including acquittals and language accessibility for the detainee's effective representation.
The failure to supply legible documents to a detenue violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution, hindering effective representation and rendering the detention order illegal.
Detention orders quashed due to procedural violations, particularly the failure to provide required documents, infringing the detenue's right to effective representation under Article 22(5).
Preventive detention must link past conduct to an imminent threat; reliance on outdated or incorrect data violates legal principles.
Preventive detention orders must follow statutory compliance and aim to prevent future offenses, not punish past actions.
Preventive detention must adhere to established legal guidelines ensuring clarity in communication and documentation to uphold individual rights.
Non-supply of legible documents to the detune constitutes a violation of the right guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution, leading to the quashing of the detention order.
Article 22(5) casts an important duty on the detaining authority to communicate the grounds of detention to the detenu at the earliest to afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representatio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
