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).

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

This petition is filed by the detenue seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the detention order dated 04.07.2025 passed in No.MAG(2)CR/L&O/01/2025-26 by the respondent No.2, the order of approval dated 11.07.2025 and the order of confirmation No.HD.326 SST.2025 dated 16.08.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 detaining the detenue in Central Prison, Mysuru, under the provisions of Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas (Immoral Trafficking Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Goonda Act').

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the detenue has been detained pursuant to the order of detention passed by the respondent No.2 against the detenue on 04.07.2025 under Section 2(g) of the Goonda Act, for being a habitual offender and repeatedly undertaking activities punishable under the various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC '), the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act') and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BNS ') and in order to prevent him from further engaging in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The order of detention was approved vide order dated 11.07.2025 and confirmed by the respondent No.1 vide order dated 16.08.2025. Being aggrieved by the said order of detention and the consequent confirmation of the said order, this petition is filed by the detenue.

3. Sri.S.Jagan Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the detention order has been passed in violation of law and suffers from the procedural irregularities. It is submitted that the detenue was not produced before the Advisory Board within 21 days from the date of detention under the order, which is in violation of the procedure laid down in the Act. It is further submitted that the detenue was not furnished with the copies of the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority but only the order of detention and the grounds of detention were furnished, which is in violation of the right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India i.e the right to give effective representation. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting the detenue free.

4. The learned State Public Prosecutor-I appearing for the respondent-State submits that the order of detention has been passed after following all procedural requirements and arriving at a subjective satisfaction. It is submitted that the detenue, despite being under trial in various offences and being out on bail, has continued his illegal activities causing disturbance to the public order due to which, he is required to be detained under the order of preventive detention. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned SPP-I appearing for the respondent-State and perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides and the material available on record.

6. The point that arises for consideration in this petition is:

"Whether the impugned order of detention dated 04.07.2025 passed by the respondent No.2, the order of approval dated 11.07.2025 and the order of confirmation dated 16.08.2025 passed by the respondent No.1, are sustainable under law?"

7. T