Preventive detention must adhere to established legal guidelines ensuring clarity in communication and documentation to uphold individual rights.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the wife of the detenue challenging the order of detention at Annexure-A dated 03.06.2025 passed by the second respondent Commissioner of Police, Hubballi Dharwad invoking the provisions contained in The Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘GOONDA Act’).

2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Sandesh Chouta, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order does not comply with many of the guidelines issued by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Jayamma Vs. Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, ILR 2019 KAR 1543. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out from the said judgment, that in paragraph No.49, the Division Bench formulated guidelines for the benefit of the stakeholders having regard to the provisions contained in the GOONDA Act. The first guideline issued by the Division Bench is that the detention order should be in writing and should be communicated to the detenue, soon after it is passed. It is submitted that the impugned detention order at Annexure-A was not served on the detenue. On the other hand, the material discloses the fact that the impugned order was served on the brother of the detenue. Secondly, every detention order shall be supplied with the translated legible version of all the scripts and documents relied upon, in the language the detenue understands, so as to enable him/her to effectively give a representation to the concerned. Separate information is furnished by the learned Senior Counsel showing nearly 185 pages of unclear documents out of nearly 800 pages that form the basis of the impugned detention order.

3. It is pointed out from guideline No.4 that the detaining authority shall specify as to which are the documents relied upon and which are the other documents casually or passingly referred to in the course of narration of facts, (including the bail orders) so that at least such of the documents which are relied upon could be furnished to the detenue in compliance of guidelines No.1 and 3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the second respondent detaining authority has failed to comply with said guidelines. Nearly 700 pages of documents are furnished to the detenue, of which nearly 185 pages are unclear. At this rate, the detenue will be unable to give a representation to the concerned authority.

4. Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out to the second paragraph of the impugned detention order where the second respondent, Commissioner of Police has exercised powers conferred on him by sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the GOONDA Act read with G.O. No. HD/75/ SST/2025 dated 27.02.2025.

5. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that Sub Section (1) of Section 3 empowers the Government to pass a detention order. However, Sub Section (2) enables delegation of the power of detention to the District Magistrates and Commissioners of Police in the State. However, such delegation is permissible only for a period of three months. If such powers are to be extended for a further period of three months, the same can be done by the Government by issuing a notification in that regard. In that view of the matter, learned Senior Counsel placed a copy of G.O. bearing No. HD 75 SST 2025 dated 30.05.2025 extending the period for three months from 10.06.2025 to 09.09.2025. At the same time it is pointed out from the impugned detention order at Annexur