Detention orders must provide independent consideration of a detainee's representation and inform them of rights to challenge, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

ORDER :

VENKATESH NAIK T, J.

This writ petition habeas corpus is filed by the father of Detenue viz., Praveen Kumar V., seeking quashing of Annexure-A dated 19.05.2025 grounds of detention order passed by respondent No.1 under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short) and Annexure-B the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 9 (f) of the Act.

2. The petitioner was/is charge sheeted, tried/being tried in all 3 cases for the offences punishable under NDPS Act, the particulars of which are as follows :

3. On 19.05.2025, the first respondent-Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru passed the impugned order directing the preventive detention of the Detenue. The impugned order came to be passed after seven months of the Detenue being enlarged on bail in the last crime registered against him. On 28.05.2025, the second respondent forwarded the detention order, grounds of detention and the documents relied upon for such detention to fourth respondent. Thereafter, the Detenue submitted a representation challenging his preventive detention under the Act. The said representation was forwarded to second respondent by the third respondent. In turn, the second respondent placed the representation of Detenue before the Advisory Board. The Detenue has not received any outcome of his representation.

4. The Detenue again submitted his representation to first, second and fourth respondent on 17.07.2025 and same was rejected by second respondent on 12.09.2025. Such representation was forwarded to the Central Government on 12.09.2025. Therefore, neither the first respondent nor the fourth respondent, Central Government has considered the representation of the Detenue. In the meanwhile, the second respondent in exercise of powers under Section 9 (f) of the Act on 12.09.2025 confirmed the detention of the Detenue for a period of one year from 19.05.2025. Hence, the petition.

5. Though in the writ petition, several grounds are urged, Sri Rohan Veeranna Tigadi, learned Counsel for the petitioner restricted his challenge to Annexures-A & B on the following grounds:

(A) Respondent No.2 while passing order Annexure-B has not considered the representation of Detenue dated17.07.2025 independent of the opinion of the Advisory Board which is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

(B) Annexure-B/confirmation order does not apprise the petitioner/Detenue of his right to make representation to the Central Government against such order, thereby the order is vitiated.

6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments:

(i) Smt. Gracy v. State of Kerala and Another , (1991) 2 SCC 1

(ii) Jayamma v. Commissioner of Bangaluru , ILR 2019 Kar 1543

(iii) Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India and Another , (1995)4 SCC 51

7. Per contra, Sri Thejesh P, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 - State submits that while passing order/Annexure-B, respondent No.2 has considered all the materials including the representation of the petitioner. He further submits that the guidelines issued do not curtail the provisions of the statute, therefore, the judgment of theHon’ble Supreme Court and this Court relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel are not applicable.

8. In support of his submissions, learned HCGP for the respondents relied on the following judgments:

(i) Union of India and Another vs. Dimple Happy Dhakad , (2019)20 SCC 609

(ii) State of Maharashtra v. Smt. Sushila Mafatlal Shah and Others , (1988) 4 SCC 490

(iii) Varadharaj vs. State