KRISHNA S. DIXIT, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
Nandini W/o Sharath Kumar – Appellant
Versus
D. G and I. G. P Of Police, Bengaluru – 560 001 – Respondent
ORDER :
Petitioner happens to be the wife of one Mr. Sharath @ Sharath Kumar, who has suffered the Detention Order dated 04.04.2024 made by the 4th Respondent – Deputy Commissioner under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas (Immoral Traffic Offencers, Slum-Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates) Act, 1985. She has also called in question, the Government order dated 03.05.2024 issued under Section 3(3) of the Act whereby the Detention Order has been confirmed for a period of one year.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner sought for the invalidation of these orders essentially arguing that: the detenue does not know reading & writing Kannada & English, although he knows speaking Kannada; that being the position, all the papers on which the impugned orders are framed ought to have been translated to Tamil which he knows reading & writing; the Detention Order refers to several bail orders secured by the detenue and copies thereof were not made available to him; the detenue has not been given legible copies of the orders/papers on which the Detention Order is structured; there is no allegation of the det
KESAVANANDA BHARATI vs. STATE OF KERALA
RUSHIKESH TANAJI BHOITE vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
SECRETARY OF THE STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT vs. E & ANOTHER
Preventive detention under the Karnataka Act is valid when supported by substantial evidence of threats to public order, and procedural safeguards are adhered to.
Preventive detention must adhere to established legal guidelines ensuring clarity in communication and documentation to uphold individual rights.
(1) Preventive detention – Power of preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention – It is not a parallel proceeding.(2) Inability on part of State’s police machinery to tack....
Preventive detention orders must provide all relevant documents to the detenue for effective representation; failure to do so invalidates the detention.
Preventive detention laws allow for detention despite bail status if there is a reasonable belief of future offenses based on past conduct.
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of the likelihood of release and necessity for detention; vague assertions are insufficient.
Preventive detention requires clear grounds and sufficient material to justify the detention, ensuring the detainee's right to make an effective representation is upheld.
The Government must take a decision on the confirmation of the detention order within three months from the initial detention, as per the provisions of Section 3(2) proviso and Section 12 of the Andh....
The advisory board's functions under the Preventive Detention Act are not judicial, and its reports do not equate to judicial decisions, nor are grounds for detention required to be explicitly detail....
Preventive detention requires a live link between past conduct and the necessity for detention; stale incidents cannot justify such orders.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.