IMPORTANT POINT
Preventive detention under the Karnataka Act is valid when supported by substantial evidence of threats to public order, and procedural safeguards are adhered to.

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 detenue violating the bail conditions in any of the matters and if there is violation, it is open to the concerned to seek rescinding of the bail; that being the position, the Detention Order is not justifiable. There is no contiguity/proximity between the alleged offences and the grounds projected in support of the Detention Order. In support of his submissions, he pressed into services certain Rulings of Apex Court and of a Coordinate Bench.

3. Learned SPP appearing for the Respondents vehemently opposed the Petition controverting the submission made by the Petitioner’s counsel. He contended that the detenue knows all the three languages namely Tamil, Kannada & English; he was furnished with copies of all the documents that were fully legible and that he has understood the same; an avalanche of grave offences are pending trial before various courts; even a case relating to abduction/kidnapping of his first wife is also pending against him; the detenue had participated in the proceedings held by the Advisory Board and never he raised any such complaints; full particulars of bail orders are furnished and that these orders are secured by himself; his detention is eminently justified in the interest of law & order and public order; the detenue has been rowdy sheeted in Andersonpet Police Station, KGF on 15.11.2013 and he has not challenged the same. Learned SPP made available the proceedings of the Advisory Board with a request that the same are exclusively meant for eyes of the Court.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

(A) A THUMBNAIL DESCRIPTION OF 1985 ACT:

a) This statute is a State Legislation. Its Preamble says that this Act intends ‘…to provide for preventive detention of bootleggers, drug-offenders, gamblers, goondas, [Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video or Audio pirates] for preventing their dangerous activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’. Thrice it has been amended: Amending Act 22 of 1987, Amending Act 16 of 2001 and Amending Act 61 of 2013. Section 2 is the Dictionary Clause of the Act. The building block of the Act namely ‘acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’ is defined very extensively under clause (a). It has an Explanation for ‘disruption of public order’ which includes an Act inter alia generating the feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof. Clause (b) defines ‘bootlegger’ in a extensive way. Clause (e) defines ‘drug offender’; clause (f) defines ‘gambler’; clause (g) defines ‘goonda’; clause (h) defines Immoral Traffic Offender; clause (i) defines ‘slum grabber’ extensively; and clause

(k) defines ‘video or audio pirate’. Other